Leviticus · Chapter 17

And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying:

Speak with Aaron and with his sons and with all the children of Israel, and say to them: This is the matter that Hashem has commanded, saying:

SPEAK UNTO AARON, AND UNTO HIS SONS, AND UNTO ALL THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. 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, that He forbade Israel whilst in the desert to eat an ordinary meal of meat [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, 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. 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, 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 Eternal 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 bamoth were permitted, but they were to offer them to G-d in front of the door of the Tent of Meeting. Thus He ordered all slaughterings, whether of unconsecrated 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, 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. 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, 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, 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., 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 meat 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. This is the proper interpretation of these verses, and it corresponds to 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: “The Rabbis say: There are many things which the Holy One, blessed be He, prohibited, and in another place permitted them again. 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. What is written there? Blood shall be imputed unto that man etc. 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. 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.” 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 Sage who says that an ordinary meal of meat 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, 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, as well as in most places, is as we have explained.

"Speak to Aaron and to his sons" — for they are the ones who slaughter on behalf of Israel.

זה הדבר, when the Torah said in 15,31 והזהרתם את בני ישראל מטומאתם, “you are to warn the Israelites regarding their state of ritual contamination,” the warning implied that they were to separate themselves from spiritually negative influences represented both by ritual contamination and by demons.

דבר אל אהרן ובניו, “speak to Aaron and his sons;” they were the slaughterers during all the years that the Israelites were in the desert. ואל כל בני ישראל, “and to all the Children of Israel.” The reason why this paragraph is inserted here is that it deals with the procedures for slaughtering animals that are to serve as sacrificial animals. As long as the Israelites were in the desert and they all dwelled around the Tabernacle, it was no hardship for them to eat meat only after the animals had first been sanctified as sacrifices, and as a byproduct of getting used to this they were weaned from the practice of offering animal sacrifices to satyrs, as they had been doing in Egypt.

דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו ואל כל ישראל, “speak to Aaron and to all the Children of Israel.” Nachmanides writes that seeing that the Torah warns that the priests are not to offer any sacrifices outside the consecrated grounds, and the people on their part are not to enter consecrated grounds in order to offer their sacrifices, the Torah also had to warn the Israelites not to offer their sacrifices outside the consecrated grounds.

Any man of the house of Israel who slaughters an ox or a lamb or a goat within the camp, or who slaughters outside the camp —

ישחט שור או כשב אשר [WHAT MAN SOEVER] THAT SLAUGHTERETH AN OX, OR A LAMB — Scripture is speaking here of consecrated animals since it says (v. 4) "and bringeth it not unto the appointed tent to offer an offering" (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 6 3; Zevachim 106a). במחנה [WHAT MAN SOEVER SLAUGHTERETH …] IN THE CAMP — i. e. outside the forecourt (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 6 5; Zevachim 107b).

Had the verse said "in the camp," it would be permitted to slaughter outside the camp. This commandment applies as well in the era of the Temple, but only in any place near Jerusalem — and what counts as near we know from tradition. If the place is distant, one may slaughter and eat the meat, for so it is written. Many have said that meat is forbidden in exile, and they interpret "neither meat nor wine has entered my mouth" as referring to animal meat, not fish meat. But they have not spoken correctly, and I do not wish to lengthen my reply to them.

איש איש …אשד ישחט, any person who slaughters, etc. Why is the word איש repeated here? In Zevachim 108 they explain this in terms of Rabbi Shimon who claimed that if someone slaughters an animal (intended as a sacrifice) on behalf of a private individual he would be guilty of slaughtering sacred things outside the Temple precincts. They base this on the repeated mention of איש meaning איש לאיש. They do not explain it as meaning that if two people combined in that act that they would both be culpable for that sin. The reason is that the Torah phrased culpability by referring to האיש ההוא, i.e. a single individual. The Talmud also explains the restrictive word ההוא as excluding anyone who committed this act accidentally, erroneously or inadvertently. At the same time they explain the word as excluding two people who combined to slaughter the animal by saying the Torah did not write ההם, but ההוא. We find this somewhat difficult seeing that Torat Kohanim is on record as deriving this halachah from the words דם שפך and not from the word ההוא. One may answer that inasmuch as there are two separate restrictive expressions, i.e. ההוא as well as שפך (verse 4), Torat Kohanim derives from the one that when two people slaughter jointly that they are not culpable, and from the other that if the act did not occur intentionally and without outside coercion the perpetrator is not punishable. אשד ישחט, who will slaughter, etc. Torat Kohanim phrases its comment thus: "From the mention of the words 'ox, sheep, and goat' I can only derive culpability for slaughtering four-legged mammals; whence do I know that slaughtering birds intended for the altar outside the precincts of the Temple or Tabernacle is also prohibited on pain of the karet penalty? Answer: from the words או אשר ישחט. I could have reasoned that if slaughtering the bird's neck, which is not the normal procedure is culpable, then someone who merely severed the bird's neck by pinching, i.e. מליקה i.e. the normal procedure, would certainly be culpable if he performed this act outside the precincts of the Temple, therefore the Torah had to tell us that he would only be culpable for שחיטה, slaughter, but not for מליקה, pinching." Thus far Torat Kohanim. From the above we learn that the word או serves to include culpability for slaughtering the bird in the wrong place whereas from the words אשר ישחט I derive that pinching is not culpable which I would otherwise have considered punishable due to the קל וחומר. How do I reconcile this with a Baraitha in Zevachim 107 where we are told by Rabbi Yishmael that he derives the culpability for slaughtering the bird from the expression אשר ישחט, whereas he derives the exclusion of culpability for pinching the bird's neck from the words זה הדבר (in verse 1) which I would have included on the basis of the קל וחומר had it not been for the words זה הדבר? Even Rabbi Akiva who disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael in Zevachim uses the extra words דם יחשב in order to derive the law that slaughtering sacrificial birds in the wrong place is culpable. He derives the exclusion of this culpability when the bird's neck is merely pinched from the expression אשר ישחט. We are forced to conclude that the author of Torat Kohanim was neither Rabbi Yishmael nor Rabbi Akiva. It is quite impossible to reconcile the view of Rabbi Yishmael with that of the author of Torat Kohanim, because the former uses the expression זה הדבר for an exegesis based on a גזרה שוה, comparing it to the same expression in Numbers 30,2, where the Torah speaks about who can cancel vows. On the other hand, the fact that Torat Kohanim does not record the exegetical comment of Rabbi Yishmael concerning the extraneous words דם יחשב, who includes culpability of someone who sprinkles the blood outside the precincts of the Tabernacle, it appears that the author of Torat Kohanim accepts the view of Rabbi Akiva. The exegetical use made by Torat Kohanim of the words או זבח in verse 8 i.e. that the blood is included in the prohibition and culpability of שחוטי חוץ makes it plain that Torat Kohanim does appear to accept the viewpoint of Rabbi Akiva as per the folio of the Talmud we quoted. From all this it emerges that the exegesis that the slaughtering of the bird is culpable when performed outside the courtyard of the Tabernacle is based on the words דם יחשב, whereas the exclusion of pinching the bird's neck as culpable is based on the words אשר ישחט. The question therefore arises why the author of Torat Kohanim derives two separate הלכות from the words אשר ישחט? Besides, why does the author of Torat Kohanim need the words דם יחשב in verse 4? I have seen the following comment by Maimonides in chapter 18 of his treatise on Ma-asseh Hakorbanot. "When two people get hold of a knife and they perform ritual slaughter jointly they are free from punishment because the Torah wrote: אשר ישחט או אשר ישחט, i.e. one who slaughters not two who slaughter." Why did Maimonides have to look for a different expression in our verses and could not derive this הלכה from the existing exegesis either in the Talmud or Torat Kohanim ? Another difficulty in the statement by Maimonides is that the very words from the verse used by Maimonides for exonerating two people who slaughter jointly have already been used exegetically to derive the law about slaughtering birds, something which both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva had agreed on in Zevachim 107? We have explained earlier that according to one of these Rabbis the word אשר ישחט is used to include culpabiity for slaughtering the bird, whereas according to the other Rabbi this word serves to exclude culpability if one merely pinched the neck of the bird in question. Maimonides accepts this latter ruling in chapter 19 of the treatise we mentioned earlier. We have still another difficulty with the exegesis of Maimonides' ruling in the matter of someone slaughtering on behalf of a private individual, i.e. איש. He derives this from the words דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך. This is how Maimonides explains his exegesis: "Although the person in question had not intended to slaughter these קדשים, sacrificial animals, for G'd as such, he will still be culpable because the Torah wrote: "it shall be accounted as blood (guilt) for that man, he has spilled blood." The latter words mean that though in his own mind this blood was similar to ordinary blood spilled on the ground and not blood intended for the altar at all he is guilty. Thus far Maimonides. The Talmud, on the other hand, uses the words איש איש as the basis for the culpability of someone who slaughters such an animal; furthermore, Torat Kohanim uses the words דם שפך as the exegetical base for excluding joint slaughter by two parties or people who slaughtered inadvertently or while under duress as we mentioned earlier. How can we use the same words exegetically to derive the prohibition of שחוטי חוץ? The last mentioned explanation is offered in the name of Rabbi Yossi who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon concerning the meaning of איש איש in Zevachim 108. We must understand therefore that Maimonides chose to bring proof for his הלכה from the superfluous words דם שפך, as it is a stronger kind of proof than the exegesis based on the repetition of the word איש. Proof of this is found in Baba Metzia 31 where the repetition of the word העבט תעביטנו in Deut.15,8 is discussed. In that instance Rabbi Shimon took the view that the Torah employed normal human syntax and that the extra word was not intended for special exegetical purposes. Tossaphot write there that when there is evidence in the verse under discussion that the repetition is not justifiable in the context of that verse, we say that it has exegetical significance. When there is some justification for the repetition, however, we may choose not to look for further הלכות based on that word. Rabbi Shimon holds that in the case of Deut. 15,8 the words די מחסורו אשר יחסד לו, "in the amount that he is short," provide ample reason to rule that when the impoverished person does not want to turn his assets into cash and prefers to receive handouts, one need not assist such a person. This is what is meant by our "ignoring the repetition תעביטנו and declaring that the Torah uses ordinary human syntax." Considering this comment by Tossaphot, we can appreciate why the words איש איש are not as good an exegetical base as are the words דם שפך which are used by the Talmud as the exegetical basis according to Rabbi Yossi. Although the Talmud uses this exegetical basis only according to the view of Rabbi Yossi, we are entitled to assume that Rabbi Shimon feels the same way about it seeing we have no reason to assume that the two Rabbis disagree. While it is true that the Talmud (Zevachim 108) presents Rabbi Shimon as using the repetition by the Torah of the word איש איש as teaching that it is culpable to slaughter a mammal outside the precincts of the Temple if said animal was slated to be a sacrificial animal, this was only before Rabbi Shimon had heard of the exegetical value of the words דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך. This is presumably why Maimonides also quoted this latter exegesis as the basis for our הלכה. [The author proceeds to deal with the first question he raised against Maimonides. I have decided to skip this. Ed.]

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.

and has not brought it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to bring it as an offering before Hashem, before the Tabernacle of Hashem — that man shall be reckoned as one who has shed blood, and that person shall be cut off from among his people.

דם יחשב BLOOD SHALL BE IMPUTED [UNTO THAN MAN] — As though he had shed the blood of a human being, who is guilty of a deadly sin. דם שפך HE HATH SHED BLOOD — These apparently redundant words are intended to include in the penalty of כרת him who sprinkles outside the fore-court the blood of a sacrifice which has been slaughtered within it as is here commanded (Sanhedrin 34b; Zevachim 107a).

BLOOD SHALL BE IMPUTED UNTO THAT MAN. This means that [his guilt is as] of the time of Creation. The verse is thus stating: “Now of all living creatures except man, I [the Eternal] have declared their blood to be as water, and their flesh as dung, just as it is said [at the time of Noah], as the green herb I have given you all. But if one slaughters an animal outside the camp, then [since it is forbidden to be eaten], it shall be imputed to him as if he had shed blood [of a fellow man].”

דם יחשב, as if the relationship of man to the animals were as it had been before the deluge when it had been forbidden to kill animals as food.

ואל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו, “and he had not first brought it to the entrance of the Tent of meeting;” as long as Moses had not erected the Tabernacle, slaughtering of animals could be done anywhere, (compare Tanchuma on this portion, section 10) as we find in fact when the Torah described in Exodus 24,5: וישלח את נערי בני ישאל ויעלו עולות, “and Moses sent the young men of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings.”As soon as the Tabernacle had been erected and became functional, the people were warned not to offer any sacrifices of animals that had not been brought to the entrance of the Tabernacle first and been approved. דם יחשב, “it will be considered as if he had shed innocent blood;” the Torah speaks here of slaughtering animals for profane use, just eating their meat, and it wishes to warn people not to consider the slaughter of animals as an act of worshipping idols, as will be explained forthwith, (verse 7) when it continues with: ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירים, “and they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to the satyrs.” The Jewish people had been deeply involved in idolatrous practices. The Torah now commands that when the time comes when they will use animals for profane purposes, this must be just that, without a tinge of idolatry. דם שפך ונכרת, “such a man has shed blood and he will be erased, etc.” The reason why this would be considered more serious an offence than murder, is that if that animal were not used for food, it should only have been killed as an offering to his Creator. דם שפך ונכרת, so far we have only heard of the penalty; where did the Torah write the warning not to commit this offence? We find it in Deuteronomy 12,13: השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך בכל מקום אשר תראה, “take heed not to offer your burnt offering in any place of your choosing.”

דם יחשב לאיש ההוא, דם שפך, “it will be considered as bloodshed for that man, he has shed (innocent) blood.” The severity of this legislation must be viewed against a background of ante-diluvial times. Before the deluge the lives of the animals were sacrosanct, i.e. man was not allowed to eat meat, only fruit and vegetables; we know this from Genesis 1,29: “here I have given you all herbage yielding seed that is on the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed-yielding fruit; it shall be yours for food.” When, in the wake of man’s general corruption, the animals became corrupt also, and were saved from the deluge by Noach, man acquired the right to eat meat. This is why we need a prohibition here that animals that were slaughtered without first being brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting are prohibited to the Jewish people on pain of the karet penalty. Seeing that animal sacrifice substitutes for man’s dying for his sins, if such an animal has been killed for secular consumption, it is considered as if the killer had killed a human being. The status of the Israelites in the desert had much in common with the status of Adam in Gan Eden before the sin so that slaughtering an ox was similar to killing a human being (Isaiah 66,3, and Nachmanides on verse 11 in our chapter).

דם שפך, “it is considered bloodshed.” Seeing that the Torah had said in Genesis 9,3 כירק עשב נתתי לכם את כל לאכלה, “I have allocated it to you as food, like the grass of the field,” and had thereby permitted Noach and mankind to kill living creatures to use as food, excepting man, i.e. cannibalism, the Torah here adds –for the Israelites- that unless we observe the rules laid down for eating meat the whole procedure turns into murder, into wanton killing. In that event, we must consider the situation as if the prohibition to eat meat which was in effect before the deluge had been reinstated.

דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך, the person is guilty of death at the hands of heaven, in return for the blood of the animal he had spilled outside the holy precincts. [at that time in the desert, killing an animal for food unless as a sacrifice was equivalent to shedding innocent blood. Ed.]

This is so that the children of Israel will bring their sacrifices, which they have been sacrificing in the open field, and bring them before Hashem, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to the priest, and slaughter them as sacred peace-offerings before Hashem.

אשר הם זבחים [THAT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL MAY BRING THEIR SACRIFICES] WHICH THEY SACRIFICE [IN THE OPEN FIELD ….. UNTO THE LORD] — "which they sacrifice" means, which they are at present accustomed to sacrifice.

"In order that they bring" — this states the reason for this commandment. The meaning of "over the face of the field" is: "and they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices."

זבחי שלמים לה׳. "sacrifices of peace-offerings to G'd." Why did the Torah not content itself by writing וזבחו אותם, instead of repeating the words זבחי שלמים once more? Perhaps G'd wanted to demonstrate His fondness of the holy offerings brought by His people. He did so by emphasising that He considered these offerings as "peace-offerings," offerings by means of which Israel and G'd are perceived as dining at the same table, just like children at the table of their father. When the Torah writes שלמים לה׳ אותם, we may view the word אותם as referring to the previous subject בני ישראל which was mentioned at the beginning of our verse. The Torah describes how the soul of the Israelites leaves its mortal sheath, so to speak, in order to perform the service for its Maker, completely unaware of the "exaggerated" fondness displayed in return by G'd towards a soul so attuned to its G'd. All this is still insignificant compared to what we owe G'd in response to all He has done on our behalf already before we got around to acknowledging this by means of any peace-offerings.

וזבחו זבחי שלמים, “and slaughter them as meat offerings;” this verse has been written in an abbreviated mode as the word 'לה, “in honour of the Lord,” has been left out.

אשר הם זובחים על פני האדמה, some of them even err in slaughtering such animals as sacrifices to demons instead of as sacrifices to G’d.

And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of Hashem at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and shall offer up the fat to be accepted with favor before Hashem.

And they shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the demons after whom they go astray. This shall be an everlasting statute for them throughout their generations.

לשעירים .means TO THE DEMONS. Similar is (Isaiah 13:21) “and demons (ושעירים) shall dance there" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 9 8).

AND THEY SHALL NO MORE SACRIFICE THEIR SACRIFICES ‘LA’SE’IRIM’ AFTER WHOM THEY GO ASTRAY. “La’se’irim means ‘unto the demons.’ Similarly it states, ‘u’se’irim’ (and demons) shall dance there.” This is Rashi’s language, derived from the Torath Kohanim. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that “the demons are so called [se’irim, a word which is connected with sei’ar, meaning ‘hair’], because on seeing them a person’s hair stands up on his body. But it is likely that they are called se’irim [a word which also means ‘goats’], because mentally deranged persons see them in the form of goats. And the word ‘more’ [in the verse before us, and they shall no ‘more’ sacrifice …] indicates that the Israelites used to do so in Egypt. After whom they go astray denotes that whoever seeks after them and believes in them ‘goes astray’ from his G-d, since he thinks that there is a power that can cause good or evil apart from the Glorious and Fearful Name.” [Thus far the words of Ibn Ezra.]Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has indeed hinted at the truth concerning the word “more,” as I have written above. The name se’irim will also be made clear to you there. They are also called sheidim [“demons,” as Rashi interpreted here — a word which is connected with shodad, meaning “devastate, despoil, ruin”], because they dwell in “devastated” places, such as the desert, and their principal habitat is in the far corners [of the earth], such as the northern extremity of the earth which is wasteland on account of the cold climate. Know that just as the formation at the original Creation of man’s body as well as that of all living creatures, vegetation and minerals, was from the four elements, which were combined by Divine power to form material bodies which as a result of their thickness and coarseness could be perceived by the five senses, even so there was a creation from only two elements, fire and air, resulting in a body which cannot be felt, nor perceived by any of the [five] senses, just as the soul of an animal cannot be perceived by human senses because of its delicacy. The body [of these creatures of two elements] is of a spiritual nature; on account of its delicacy and lightness it can fly through fire and air. And just as the combination of the four elements in any object is the cause of its existence and its destruction [since everything that is composite must ultimately revert to its original components], so is it with these beings created from a combination of only two elements; when the elements combine, the creature lives, and when they separate [decompose], it is like the dead. It is for this reason that our Rabbis have said: “Six characteristics have been said of sheidim, in three they are comparable to the ministering angels and in three to human beings. The three things in which they are comparable to the ministering angels are that they have wings, they fly, and they know what is about to happen, as do the ministering angels. [On this statement the Gemara asked:] ‘How can it enter your mind to say that the sheidim know the future [when even the ministering angels do not know it]! Say rather thus: They hear [from behind the Curtain of heaven] what is about to happen.’ The three things in which they are comparable to human beings are that they eat and drink, procreate, and die as do human beings.” Now the cause of death generally is the separation [decomposition] of the components of the body, this being true of all kinds of bodies [whether they are composed of the four elements like humans or of only two, like sheidim]. The reason for their ability to fly is because of the lightness of the [two] elements [fire and air] of which they are composed, as may also be seen in the case of a fowl, in which, because the elements of fire and air dominate over the small parts of the other two elements [earth and water], the fowl can hover in the air and fly [although it is composed of all four elements]. Surely, then, the above-mentioned creatures that have nothing in them of the heavy elements [earth and water], possess great hovering power in the air, to be able to fly tirelessly. The matter of “eating” [mentioned above in connection with these creatures] means their deriving nourishment from the moisture of water and the odors of fire, something like the fire that licked up the water that was in the trench. This is the purpose of the burnings which necromancers perform to the demons. The reason [for their need to “eat”] is that the fire in the air causes the drying up of their bodies, which must therefore be restored just as man’s need for food is due to depletion in his body. As for that which has been said concerning their “hearing what is about to happen,” it is because in the course of their flying on high they become aware of things that are about to happen from the powerful forces contained in the atmosphere, these being “the princes of the quiver.” It is also from there that “those who have wings tell matters” of the future, as has been tested by enchanters, and as I will explain in its place with the help of G-d. But neither of them know what is to happen for many days to come and for times that are far off; but they can only inform of that which is to happen in the near future, as we know from their encounters [i.e., those of enchanters], that they gain knowledge from the sheidim as to what has been decreed to come. Therefore Onkelos rendered the verse, They sacrificed unto demons, ‘lo eloha’ (no gods), as “they sacrificed unto demons in which there is no utility,” meaning that there is no need for them, as they do not prevent harm that is destined to come, neither do they do anything productive, nor do they inform of times far off so that a person may knowingly guard himself. It is this which is the sense of the expression, lo eloha, which is as if it said, “no power or rulership,” for the word Elokim is an expression of strength and power, [a composite word consisting of the words] e-il heim. Thus the verse is stating that demons have no strength or power whatsoever, and hence there is no need for them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good.

"To the goat-demons" — these are the demons. They are called by this name because the body of one who sees them shudders [from the root שׂ-ע-ר, to bristle], and the probable reason is that madmen see them in the form of goat-like beings. The word "anymore" indicates that this is what Israel had been doing in Egypt. "After whom they go astray" — for anyone who seeks them and believes in them is going astray from beneath his God, since he imagines that there is some being that can bring good or harm besides the glorious and awesome Hashem. In this passage the resident alien [ger] is not mentioned, because the commandment concerning sacrifices and burnt-offerings applies to Israel. The alien is mentioned [only] so that Israel would not allow him to slaughter to idols in the Land of Israel. Similarly, the law of all blood applies, being forbidden because it is the life-force — for the flesh [lives] through the blood. The truth is that the life-force [nefesh] by which a person lives resides in the blood of the heart.

חקת עולם תהיה זאת, not to offer sacrifices to the demons even though they were not being equated with deities in any manner, but were considered only as creatures that could be employed by their human masters. They even used to employ such demons for errands to distant countries. We have documented proof of this in the case of Joseph Shida [the demon named Joseph].(Sanhedrin 59, compare Nachmanides) and about the demon who was prominent in the household of Rav bar Rav Ashi (Chulin 105). Had such demons been considered deities it is inconceivable that people of Rav Ashi’s stature or Rav Pappa’s stature would have had any track with them whatsoever. It is reported in the Talmud that whereas little is known about the manner of these demons’ creation, they are known to eat and drink just as human beings. It is further worthy of mention that the sages, collectively, referred to the phenomenon of the demons as מזיקים, destructive, harmful phenomena. They multiply in a manner similar to humans and they die a regular death. They see without being seen themselves. Apparently, although they are composed of composite material, their bones are extremely thin and transparent. The author speculates that just as ordinary human beings in common with the animals possess a נפש חיוני “intangible life-force” which, seeing that it dies with the body it inhabits, as distinct from the human נשמה which is an intangible spirit emanating in the celestial regions, is basically terrestrial in nature, these demons are “powered” by such a life-force. The reason we find that “life-force” referred to on occasion as נפש is the fact that it cannot exist without its tangible partner, the one which feeds on food and drink secured from what is available in our terrestrial universe. Consider the very fact that the Torah describes “blood as the life-force” (Deuteronomy 12,23). If someone were to sacrifice blood to such a creature, especially, seeing that it is powerful enough to sustain the life of such creatures, the blood sacrificed to such creatures would be equivalent to keeping these demons alive. (compare Maimonides, Moreh Nevuchim,3,46 on the subject). This would be a violation of the statement in Chulin 105 כל מידי דצייר וחתים וכייל ומני לית לן רשותא למשקל מינעה. This is a conversation between the “owner” of a demon, Mar bar Rav Ashi, according to which the demon who had not paid back a loan on time to the “owner” claimed that his power to collect objects in this world did not include objects which were clearly defined and visible. From this Tossaphot Taanit 8 divrey hamatchil אלא בדבר concludes that if clearly defined and visible phenomena in this world were out of bounds to the demons unless they were definitely ownerless, phenomena which are not visible to us humans belonged to the category of phenomena over which such demons did have control. At any rate, when a situation exists when many people find such demons useful and pliable to their wishes, people indulged in offering them blood so as to endear themselves to these creatures and to get them to perform their wishes. The people offering these gifts of blood used to eat it themselves also, in order to share more common ground with these creatures. Some people even made a point of consuming the blood of such “gifts” to the demons in the vicinity of the Temple. They were under the impression that these demons were performing their dances in that vicinity. They hoped to ingratiate themselves with these creatures by showing them this kind of “respect.” When G’d decided to sanctify us and He separated His people from dependence on such demons and taught us not to pursue such ultimately useless phenomena and put our trust in them, seeing that contrary to a superficial perception they are really mazikim, destructive forces, as our sages correctly described them, He levied a severe penalty on people who continue such relationships as they used to entertain with demons. The penalty of karet means severance from one’s own people’s eternal future. (verse 10) G’d levied a similar penalty on eating blood and offering gifts to these demons as He had levied at the time in Gan Eden when he forbade eating from the tree of knowledge on pain of man becoming mortal, i.e. losing an aspect of his infinity on this earth. (Genesis 2,17). The Torah rationalized its prohibition and the severity of the penalty by stating: “for the soul (intangible life-force) of the flesh is in the blood.” This is the Torah’s way of referring to the almost invisible essence of these creatures. On the one hand, this essence is called nefesh “life-force,” on the other hand it is referred to as blood, as once the blood stops coursing through the veins of the body it feeds it is the end of the existence of both the body and life force of such creatures. G’d added (verse 11) ואני נתתיו לכם על המזבח לכפר, “I have given you an opportunity to present this blood on My altar in order to facilitate your atonement for your life-force. The point G’d is making is that as opposed to these demons for whom such blood is an essential part of their nutrients, enabling them to stay alive, I, the Lord, do not need anything like this for Myself; on the contrary, I have provided you My people with an opportunity to remain alive yourselves by achieving atonement for your sins by means of sacrifices involving the life blood of the animal you are offering. Sacrifices, offerings, in order to be meaningful as expiation, must be in a certain reciprocal relationship to the donor. If the donor had been guilty of forfeiting his life, only someone else’s life, in this instance the blood of the sacrificial animal, can possibly achieve this kind of atonement in lieu of the sinner’s lifeblood himself. Other parts of the sacrificial animal being burned up on the altar, similarly, correspond to the parts of the body of the donor which had been guilty of committing the sin for which the donor hopes to atone. (compare author on Leviticus 1,2)

חקת עולם, “this shall be a statute for ever.” These words must not be understood as connected to what is written in verse 5 about people who offer sacrifices on altars other than the altar in front of the Tabernacle/Temple who are guilty of the most serious penalty but rather about people who offer their sacrifices to the demons as they did in Egypt. [This editor has failed to understand all his life how the people could have ignored this warning not to offer sacrifices on private altars until about 100 years before the destruction of the first Temple, under the rule of King Yoshiyahu, (Kings II chapter 23) i.e. for close to eight hundred years after they had come to the Holy land. In spite of all the prophets warning and even the Kings loyal to the Torah’s injunctions this law had been consistently ignored. Ed.]

ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירים, “so that they will no longer offer their sacrificial offerings to the (he-goats) demons.” While the Israelites were exiled in Egypt they were enthusiastic followers of that particular cult in order to gain some advance knowledge of what was in store for them in the future. This particular cult was known by the name שעירים because the people worshipping it either dressed up as he-goats or because people’s hair would stand on edge from fright when they beheld the worshippers of that cult. Alternatively, these apparitions were known as שדים, demons, because they would dwell in regions which are not inhabited by man such as wildernesses, deserts, regions too cold for humans to be comfortable in. These “demons” were primarily composed of only 2 of the 4 elements which man is made of, i.e. of fire and air (spirit). Seeing that they are also light in weight they can fly all over at will. At the time of their creation they were composed of only two elements instead of the four elements which human beings, animals, as well as the plants have in common. As a result, instead of possessing solid bodies such as human beings and animals which therefore are tangible and easily recognizable, these demons are of such transparent shape that they cannot be easily seen and identified. However, they are able to assume a visible form when they so desire by “dressing up” as if they were humans or animals. Their “bodies” are essentially spiritual in nature The creatures composed of four elements are germane to their environment being a composition of the elements in which they exist, i.e. earth, and they fall sick when the correct balance of their four elements is disturbed so that they die as a result and the respective elements disintegrate each to merge again with its constituent part. These demons experience a similar fate when there is an imbalance in the two elements they consist of. This is what our sages (Chagigah 16) meant when they said that we have been told of six features possessed by these demons to help us identify them. In three respects they are like human beings, whereas in another three respects they are like angels, i.e. disembodied creatures. These demons have wings, can fly, and have foreknowledge of future events just like the angels. Their “knowledge” is not the result of their intelligence; rather they have overheard such information which abounds in the celestial regions originating with G’d. G’d reveals such information to the mazzalot, horoscopes, etc. The demons overhear this being able to move in those regions. In fact it is logical that the demons possess such “knowledge.” If even birds are aware of future events and communicate them by means of their twittering (and the diviners came by their foreknowledge of events through having learned to decipher the twittering of the birds) then the demons which fly much higher in much more rarefied regions than the birds are certainly privy to such information, getting their information from the planets in charge of the various mazalot. Whatever knowledge of impending events either the birds or the demons possess relates only to events in the near term; neither birds nor demons have foreknowledge of events in the distant future. The three areas in which these demons are closer to human beings are that they eat and drink like human beings, they procreate like human beings, and they die like human beings. The Talmud did not mean that the demons eat the kind of food humans eat. Seeing that humans are composed of four elements some very tangible and substantive, the food requirements of humans are similar, i.e. man requires what is known as “solid food.” The demons being composed of very “light” elements only naturally do not require “solid” food. Their requirements are limited to fragrances needed by the fire in their components and by moisture to replenish the moisture lost through its close association with fire, its other component. The fire dried out some of the natural moisture of the air; hence this moisture needs replacement. The reason the sages in the Talmud compared the eating of the demons to our eating habits is only to describe that just as man’s body uses up fat if he does not eat, and liquid if he does not drink and replaces those sources of energy in order to revive these vital parts, so the demons need to eat and drink because of parallel considerations. The matter of fire consuming water is illustrated in Kings I 18,38 where the prophet describes the fire consuming the sacrifices Elijah offered as also consuming the water in which the animals had been drenched as well as the moat he built around the altar. When people (pagans) burn up sacrifices to these demons they do so in order to feed them. The smoke from the animals being burned provide the fragrance and the moisture these demons require. Seeing they receive benefit from what people do for them, the demons in return tell people of events about to happen. The discipline which studies these phenomena is known as “necromancy.” Concerning the “death” of these demons which the Talmud speaks of and compares to the death of human beings, what they mean is simply that parts (elements) which are fused into living tissue combining all these elements disintegrate after death. The parts making up the creature known as demon similarly disintegrates at some point. When it does this is called the “death” of the demon. Regarding the matter of demons “flying,” described in the Talmud as comparable to the flight of the angels, this is due to the lightness of their bodies, If birds can fly then these demons obviously can fly even better. After all, the bodies of the birds are composed of all four basic elements and all have to be transported by their wings.

“And they shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to goat-demons.” This passage is placed here because there is room for heretics to err and say that sending the goat to the wilderness is for the goat-demons, Heaven forbid. Therefore, He immediately warned them about slaughtering outside [the Temple] and indicated that God actually wanted to prevent them from sacrificing to goat-demons, which they had engaged in previously, as evidenced by the use of the term “no longer.” The matter of the goat [to Azazel] is not a form of worship or sacrifice, but rather the portion of Samael, as Nachmanides explains (Leviticus 16:8), saying: “The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded that we send a goat to the wilderness to the angel who rules over places of desolation, for he is the cause of the stars of sword, blood, wars, wounds, blows, division, destruction, and generally the soul of the planet Mars. His portion among the nations is Esau, who is the nation that inherits the sword and wars. Among animals, his portion is goats, and his portion also includes the demons called mazikin and goat-demons,” and the Rabbi elaborated there in his language. And here I have an opportunity to explain with this what is written regarding sacrifices outside [the Temple]: blood shall be imputed to that man. Rashi explains: “as if he shed human blood,” etc. One may ask, what is the connection between slaughtering outside [the Temple] and shedding human blood? But since one who slaughters outside to goat-demons draws power from Mars, which influences swords and killing, it follows that blood shall be imputed to that man is aptly stated, for he is truly considered as one who sheds blood, since this is the power of his deity. And this is a precious interpretation.

לשעירים, “to the demons;” the spiritually negative phenomena, שדים, the expression occurs in that sense also in Isaiah 13,21 ושעירים ירקדו שם, “and the demons are dancing there.” Ibn Ezra writes that the reason that these demons are described as שעירים, hairs, is that people’s hair stands on edge when they behold these creatures. It is more likely that the reason they are called thus is that they conduct themselves like people who have gone out of their minds, as elaborated on by Nachmanides in his commentary on 17,14 כי נפש כל בשר בדם היא.

And to them you shall say: Any man of the house of Israel, or from the proselytes who have converted among you, who offers up a burnt offering or a peace-offering —

אשר יעלה עלה [WHOSOEVER MAN THERE BE ….] THAT OFFERETH (lit., bringeth up) A BURNT OFFERING — This is intended to declare one who burns the limbs of sacrifices outside the fore-court to be liable to the penalty of excision just the same as him who slaughtered a sacrifice outside the fore-court; so that if one person slaughtered a sacrifice outside the fore-court and another brought it up on the altar to burn it both are liable to excision (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 10 6; Zevachim 106a).

ואליהם תאמר, "And to them you are to say, etc." According to Rabbi Yishmael in Zevachim 107 we are dealing here with an example of a phenomenon known as ערוב פרשיות, i.e. that the Torah writes a verse in a paragraph dealing with one subject whereas that verse really had its place in a different paragraph dealing with another subject matter. In our case our verse teaches that whereas so far the prohibition against שחוטי חוץ was presumed to apply only to the act of slaughtering outside and not to burning up the remains of the animals outside the sacred precincts, our verse comes to include also the burning up of the remains of such animals in all instances where these animals had been slated to be burned up on the altar. According to the first Mishnah in Zevachim chapter 13 if one slaughtered the sacrificial animal within the sacred precincts but burned the remains outside those precincts one is just as guilty as if one had slaughtered the animal outside the permitted perimeter. This prohibition applies even if the remains of that animal had not been meant to be burned up on the altar at all. Compare Rashi on the Mishnah. מבית ישראל, from the house of Israel, etc. The Torah had to write the words "from the house of Israel" and could not content itself with writing the pronoun ואליהם at the beginning of this verse which would have created the impression that it referred to the matters discussed earlier in the paragraph. The word איש איש would have referred to two people who commit a sin jointly such as slaughtering an animal intended for the altar outside the sacred perimeter as we have already discussed. The Torah was afraid that an exegete would use the repetition of the word איש to include Gentiles. The Talmud in Menachot 73 when explaining the word איש איש in Leviticus 22,18 uses the repetition to mean that free-willed offerings by Gentiles are acceptable for the altar of the Temple. In order to prevent us from interpreting the additional word איש in our context in a similar manner the Torah had to add the words מבית ישראל. Burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are acceptable only from Israelites. This in turns leads us to interpret the other meanings we have attributed to the extra word איש in our chapter. Once the Torah was worried about our misinterpreting the word איש איש, so that it had to add the words מבית ישראל, the Torah next had to worry that the words מבית ישראל would lead us to interpret that even proselytes could not offer burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. This is why the Torah had to add the words: "and from amongst the proselyte who lives amongst you." At this point there was a need to write all these words of an inclusive nature. Were it not for these additional examples of inclusive letters, etc. we would be tempted to interpret that the Torah did not include anything which was not spelled out specifically. This is true even according to Rabbi Yossi who holds that the Torah used the ordinary human syntax. Perhaps Rabbi Yossi Haglili holds that the principle of the Torah using ordinary human syntax applies only when there is some evidence that the Torah does not want us to use a specific extraneous word exegetically. [The Talmud in Baba Metzia 31 deals with numerous phenomena of the Torah repeating a word, such as :,שלח תשלח, הוכח תוכיח, הקם תקים, עזוב תעזוב and others. In all these instances the extra word is used exegetically, no one claiming that the Torah uses ordinary human syntax. Ed.] Although the Talmud queries the right of Rabbi Yossi Haglili who fails to use the extra word איש exegetically in one context to use it exegetically in other contexts, this would hold true were it not for the fact that the Talmud found an alternate expression to arrive at the same הלכה by using the word דם שפך exegetically instead of the extra word איש. Whenever the result of interpreting the extra word איש is not in conflict with known הלכות, we do not resort to the principle that "the Torah merely used ordinary human syntax." Tossaphot on Baba Metzia 31 point out that it is unreasonable to suppose that the rabbis were unable to find some exegetical use for the repetition of the word איש in every case where it appears, or for that matter, for any of the many examples where the Torah repeats a word, albeit in a slightly modified form. While it is true that Tossaphot there address the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the same applies to the opinion expressed by Rabbi Yossi Haglili. The main thrust of the argument of those who hold that the Torah uses ordinary human syntax is that we fall back on that principle only where exegetical use of the word would bring us into conflict with accepted הלכות. It can be demonstrated that even Rabbi Shimon frequently accepts that principle although he does use repetitions exegetically.

and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to perform it before Hashem — that person shall be cut off from his people.

ונכרת [THAT MAN] SHALL BE CUT OFF — his offspring are cut off (die out) and his own life-time (lit., his days) is shortened (cf. Rashi and Tos. Shabbat 25a; Tos. Yevamot 2a).

And any man of the house of Israel, or from the proselytes who have converted among you, who eats any blood — I will direct My anger against the person who eats blood, and I will cut him off from among his people.

כל דם [WHATSOEVER MAN THERE BE … THAT EATETH] ANY BLOOD — Since Scripture states (v. 11) “[for it is the blood] with the life that maketh expiation", I might think that one is liable only for eating the blood of consecrated animals, (i. e. sacrifices), for it is only the blood of such animals that makes expiation. Scripture therefore states here “[Whatsoever man there be … that eateth] any blood [I will cut him off from among his people]" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 7 3). ונתתי פני I WILL SET פני [AGAINST THAT SOUL] — פני is taken to mean as much as פנאי שלי My leisure — i.e. I will turn away (פונה) from all My affairs and concern Myself only with him (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 7 4; cf. also Targum Jonathan)

ואיש איש מבית ישראל אשר יאכל, "And any person from the house of Israel who will eat, etc." Torat Kohanim explains the repetition of the word איש in these words: "The word ישראל refers to the Israelites; the word גר refers to a proselyte; the letter ה before the word גר refers to the wife of the proselyte; the word בתוכם refers to women and slaves. In view of this, why did the Torah have to repeat the word איש? Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Shimon answers that it is meant to include a baby of a Jewish mother fathered by a stranger or a slave." We need to know why the Torah had to write so many words to include all these details just as the Baraitha in Sukkah 28 asked concerning the word האזרח including the wives, etc. In that instance we find the following discussion [concerning who has to observe the commandment of fasting on the Day of Atonement, (Leviticus 23,27) a positive commandment applicable only at a certain time, something not normally applicable to women, Ed.]. "Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of Rav that the Torah compared men and women as being equal when it comes to the penalties for violations of Torah laws. As a result, the question arises why the Torah had to write words such as האזרח to restrict the law to adult males, or the words איש או אשה in Numbers 5,6 where clearly we speak of violation of a negative commandment, something that applies to women even if the Torah did not write the word אשה?" The answer given there is that the Torah included the application of the law even to the additional time before nightfall. Without the extra word I might have assumed that seeing neither men nor women are culpable for failure to observe that part of the fast, women would not even be obligated to observe it; therefore the Torah had to write a word indicating that observance is obligatory for women also. Using the approach underlying the discussion in the Talmud, we are entitled to ask here also why the Torah needed to write anything to include women? Who would have thought that women are relieved of the prohibition to eat blood? It is a negative commandment and it goes without saying that women are culpable if they violate it! Besides, why would we have made a difference between a baby born by a proselyte and one born by a natural-born Jewess that the Torah had to write something special to include such a woman? Furthermore, whom did the author of Torat Kohanim refer to when he spoke about a baby fathered by a proselyte so that the Torah had to specifically include such a child in its legislation by writing איש איש? If such a child reverts to paganism when he grows up, clearly the legislation does not apply to him. If, on the other hand, he grows up as a Jew, why would we need a word in the Torah in order to let us know that this legislation applies to him? In view of the fact that Torat Kohanim describes the child as an Israelite, it is clear that the assumption is that the child remained Jewish willingly. There is no reason why he should be inferior to a proselyte who was not even born as a Jew! The author of Korban Aharon writes that the correct wording in the Baraitha quoting Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Shimon should be: מן הגוי ומן העבד. The lesson would be that although the father of such a child is or was a pagan or a slave who had not been forbidden to eat blood, the child is forbidden to eat blood as he is considered part of the people his mother belongs to. The child of any union between a male Gentile and female Jewess is considered Jewish as we know from Yevamot 23, where the Talmud bases this on Deut. 7,3-4 the word בנך referring to a grandchild whose father was a Gentile. Thus far Korban Aharon. I find it difficult to accept a distinction between the son of such a mixed union who has decided to opt out of Judaism and one who has not. Once the Torah designated such a son as Jewish he is Jewish in the full sense of the word. If the Torah spoke of a son who did not want to remain Jewish, he has thrown off all of Torah! The Torah certainly does not address such a person! If we are able to impose Torah law on such a youngster we are obligated to do so just as we do with any natural-born Israelite who defies Torah law. If he is not under our control, what point is there in the Torah writing laws concerning such a person? I believe that in order to understand what motivated the comments of Torat Kohanim and Korban Aharon it would help if we first examined the reason underlying the prohibition to eat blood which is the subject of our paragraph. Our sages have enlightened us in describing the souls of all Israelites as of a quality which is unmatched, when they interpreted Deut. 32,9 כי חלק ה׳ עמו, to mean that "His people are part of G'd Himself." They also added that although we live our lives in the "lower" world, physically distant from the "higher" celestial regions, we nonetheless retain a חוט של חסד, an umbilical cord of love which ties us to the celestial regions as demonstrated by the words יעקב חבל נחלתו, that "Jacob is the "rope" of His inheritance" (ibid.). The "soul" of an animal, on the other hand, is rooted in the "lower" world. It is related only to the spiritual forces of the lowest order, the קליפת נוגה. Whenever man -knowing it is forbidden-consumes the life-blood of an animal i.e. blood whose loss would result in the death of that animal (as opposed to blood of the capillaries), such eating is punishable by כרת, the premature death and/or extinction of the Jew eating such blood. The reason is very simple. By eating such blood and absorbing a lower category of animal soul thus diluting the "higher" soul G'd has equipped him with, one demonstrates his contempt for higher spiritual values, denying his דבקות, attachment, to one's celestial origin. The Torah writes: "I will set My face against the person (soul) who eats the blood and will cut him off from amongst his people." The Torah refers to what we have called the חוט החסד, the "thread (or rope) of love" which connects the Jewish soul to its celestial origin. All Jewish souls have a common celestial origin near the throne of G'd; this is why the Torah spoke of מקרב עמה, "from the midst of his people." Furthermore, it is a well known fact that though the Jewish people share a common root, they are different individually in their relative spiritual levels. This is the mystical dimension of Kohelet 5,7: כי גבוה מעל גבוה שומר וגבוהים עליהם, "for there is One higher than the high Who watches and there are high ones above them." Seeing this is so, one might reason that in view of the fact that this animal which is ritually fit to be eaten cannot therefore have a ritually impure "soul," (life-force) and that imbibing its soul could not be damaging to our souls. I would have reasoned that if consumption of blood is capable of contaminating Jewish souls at all, it can have such an effect only on the most superior of souls, i.e. that of the males. It would follow that the penalty decreed by the Torah is restricted to Jewish males. This is why the Torah had to write words which make it plain that women are no less culpable for infraction of this prohibition than are men. Once the Torah had to write words or letters to include people whom we would not normally have included in that legislation, it had to spell out all the ones included or I would have reasoned that the respective inclusion applied only to the particular "lower" category of person singled out by special reference. The Torah therefore had to demonstrate that though Jewish souls are not all of the same calibre, all are holy enough to jeopardise their holiness if the bodies they inhabit consume animal blood. You may also choose to pursue a different approach to our problem. You may argue that consumption of animal blood, i.e. the "soul" of such an animal could prove damaging only to the lowest categories of Jewish souls, and that therefore only those kinds of Jews should be prohibited from eating animal blood. A superior soul would be able to resist the subversive influence of such an animal's "soul" although it might not be totally immune to it. Such potential damage would certainly not be sufficient to rate the harsh כרת penalty. The Torah therefore carefully phrased the legislation in such a way that we cannot arrive at such faulty conclusions. By writing a series of expressions each one designed to include more and more categories of people in this legislation the Torah makes it clear that it applies to both people equipped with superior souls and those whose souls are on a lower level. Here is a list of different levels of sanctity. The highest level belongs to the Israelite males; the second highest level belongs to their wives seeing that a female soul is not on the same level of spirituality as is that of a male; the next lower level is the son of a union between a natural born Jewish father and a proselyte. Next in line of sanctity from birth is the son of a proselyte married to a natural-born Jewish woman. Next in line is the female proselyte, daughter of either of the two last mentioned unions. Below this is the son of a union between a male proselyte and a female proselyte. Next in line of sanctity from birth is the daughter born from a union between a male and a female proselyte. Finally, there is the level of the proselyte himself. All of the above-mentioned levels are alluded to in the Torah at some point or other. The first and highest category of sanctity from birth is spelled out in the Baraitha of Torat Kohanim when they interpret the word ישראל in our verse as a reference to a male, natural-born, Israelite. Proselytes are mentioned twice in that paragraph when the words הגר הגר are understood as referring to two separate types of proselytes. You will also find that in Sukkah 28 they interpret the letter ה of the word האזרח as including the wives of the proselytes. This teaches us that the letter ה in the word הגר is to be understood as a רבוי, an additional dimension of the word גר. This means that the words הגר הגר in our verse really include four different kinds of combinations of proselytes. You therefore have a total of 4 extra words or letters each including additional categories of proselytes. Perhaps the wording of the author of our paragraph in Torat Kohanim who wrote גר אלו גרים, instead of זה גר as we would have expected, reflects that what he had in mind are two different categories of proselytes as opposed to a multiplicity of proselytes all of the same category, whereas the letter ה in front of the first גר refers to the wives of the proselytes. When the author of Torat Kohanim went on to write that the word בתוכם refers to the wives and slaves, he meant natural-born Jewish wives and slaves whose status in Jewish halachah is the same as that of women. Do not query the need for these people to have been especially included in the legislation seeing we could have included them by applying a קל וחומר from the application of the legislation to proselytes, i.e. if even proselytes are included what possible reason could there be for not including natural-born Jewish women? After all, natural-born Jewish women possess souls that are intrinsically less holy than those of their husbands, and if so what need was there for the Torah to mention them as being included in the group of people to whom the כרת penalty applies if even their husbands are so vulnerable that they are liable to the כרת penalty if they eat blood? Remember that if it had not been for the inclusive word בתוכם which we used to include women in the prohibition to eat blood and the resultant penalty, we would not have used the letter ה in the word הגר to include two categories of proselytes as we have described. Altogether we are faced with six different "inclusive" words or letters. The Torah wrote איש איש i.e. 2 more "inclusive" words which the author of Torat Kohanim uses to include the child born of an Israelite woman from a union with either a proselyte of a slave i.e. a child containing Jewish seed albeit seed from a Jew who was not a natural-born Jew. This is why the Torah wrote the additional words מן הגר, "originating in a proselyte." The intention of the verse was to refer to a proselyte who had married a natural-born Jewess or vice versa. These last named two categories are derived from the words איש איש. Do not raise the objection that there was no need to write extra words or letters to include all these different levels of proselytes and the offspring of their unions seeing that even a total proselyte, i.e. one in whose veins not a drop of "Jewish" blood flows is subject to this legislation? If it had not been for the extra word איש which tells us that the proselytes mentioned in this verse were second generation proselytes, i.e. those whose father or mother or both had already been Jewish at the time they were conceived, I would not have known all this. Having written the extra word איש enabled the Torah to describe that there are different levels of proselytes, the most spiritually endowed being the ones in whose veins there flows some blood of a natural-born Jew. These are followed by the proselytes in which no such blood of natural-born Jews flows at all. You may ask whence do we know that a female child whose father was a proselyte and whose mother was a natural-born Jewess is subject to this legislation? Answer: if even a proselyte in whose veins no Jewish blood flows at all is included in the above legislation there was no need to add further רבויים, letters of an inclusive nature, to add such people to the groups of people covered by our verse. בנפש האכלת, against the person (soul) eating, etc. Torat Kohanim understands the word בנפש in the singular as teaching that G'd does not punish a community who collectively consume blood with the כרת penalty, as the sin does not have the power to destroy the holiness of a group of people. מקרב עמה, from amongst his people. According to Torat Kohanim the purpose is ועמה שלום, "and his people will be at peace." I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. If the people are guilty of that penalty because they are each responsible for the proper conduct of a fellow Jew, why should they not be punished? If, on the other hand, the Torah does not speak of people whose culpability originates in the הלכה of ערב, i.e. that each Jew is a sort of guarantor vis-a vis-G'd of a fellow Jew's behaviour, such as in instances when the sin was committed accidentally or unbeknown to the fellow Jew, why would the Torah have to even hint that such people are free from this penalty or any penalty at all? I believe that what Torat Kohanim had in mind was that when you cut off diseased branches from a tree you thereby improve what remains of the tree. The words מקרב עמה, from the midst of his people, mean that G'd decided to cut off this branch in order for the diseased branch not to infect the rest of the tree so that the tree itself remains healthy, שלם.

אשר יאכל כל דם, “who eat any blood;” the Torah has repeated its warning not to eat blood on many occasions as it is something that will be absorbed by our tissues whereas fat and tendons are not so absorbed.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to atone for your lives, for it is the blood that atones for the life.

כי נפש הבשר FOR THE LIFE OF THE FLESH of every creature, not only of animals brought as sacrifices, is dependent on its blood (בדם היא), and it is for this reason that I have placed it [on the altar] to make expiation for the life of man: let life come and expiate for life!

FOR THE LIFE OF THE FLESH IS IN THE BLOOD; AND I HAVE GIVEN IT TO YOU UPON THE ALTAR TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR YOUR SOULS. The sense of this verse is to state that He forbade us [to eat] blood because He has given it to us to be upon the altar and to effect atonement for our souls, and it is therefore the part dedicated to G-d, just as is the case with the forbidden fat. And if one should ask: “Why then has He forbidden us to eat the blood of a wild animal and that of a fowl, from which offerings are not brought?” We will dismiss the questioner by saying that it was His wish to keep us far away from eating any kind of blood, in order that we should never make a mistake therein [and eat forbidden blood as a result of failing to distinguish between one kind of blood and another]. In the case of fat, however, He did not [categorically] forbid all kinds of fat, because [the permissible kind of fat] is distinguishable from the non-permissible. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim that the Chaldeans loathed blood, considering it impure, and only those who sought to establish contact with the demons and to foretell the future would eat it. Now the Torah always seeks to destroy these foolish theories, by [ordaining measures which are] contrary to their ideas. Therefore He prohibited the eating of blood and chose it as the means of purifying [the impure] by means of the sprinklings thereof, and to throw it upon the altar of G-d for atonement. Therefore He said, I will set My face against that soul that eateth blood, just as He said with reference to him who gives of his children to Molech, because this [practice of eating blood] leads to a kind of idol worship, such words not being stated concerning any other commandment. Now these words [of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] are sensible in themselves, however the verses do not indicate [that the reason for the prohibition against eating blood is] so [as the Rabbi has said], for they always state the reason for that prohibition to be, For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof; For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And in the Book of Deuteronomy He again states, Only be steadfast in not eating the blood; for the blood is the life; and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh. It is proper, therefore, to explain the reason for the prohibition against eating blood by saying that G-d created all lower creatures for the purpose of man, since only he amongst all of them recognizes his Creator. Nonetheless, He did not at first permit man to eat anything except for vegetation, but no living creatures at all, just as is stated in the Chapter of Creation where it is said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed etc. for food; but when the flood came and they [the lower creatures] were saved by the merit of Noah, and he brought offerings from them to G-d which were acceptable before Him, He gave man permission to slaughter [and eat them], just as He said, Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for you; as the green herb have I given you all, since their existence was because of man. Thus He permitted man to use their bodies for his benefit and needs because their life was on account of man’s sake, and that their soul [i.e., blood] should be used for man’s atonement when offering them up before Him, blessed be He, but not to eat it, since one creature possessed of a soul is not to eat another creature with a soul, for all souls belong to G-d. The life of man just as the life of the animal are all His, even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath. Now in the opinion of the Greek philosopher [i.e., Aristotle] as interpreted by those who scrutinize his words, it was out of the Active Intellect that there emitted a very fine and bright flash and glitter of light, from which came forth the spark which is the soul of the animal. It is thus in a certain sense a real soul. It therefore has sufficient understanding to avoid harm, and to seek its welfare, and a sense of recognition towards those with whom it is familiar, and love towards them, just as dogs love their masters, and they have a wonderful sense of recognition of the people of their households, and similarly pigeons have a sense of knowledge and recognition. Now it is also known that the food one eats is taken into the body of the eater and they become one flesh. If one were to eat the life of all flesh, it would then attach itself to one’s own blood and they would become united in one’s heart, and the result would be a thickening and coarsensss of the human soul so that it would closely approach the nature of the animal soul which resided in that which he ate, since blood does not require digestion as other foods do, which thereby become changed, and thus man’s soul will become combined with the blood of the animal! And Scripture states, Who knoweth the spirit of man whether it goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast whether it goeth downward to the earth? It is for this reason that He said, For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof, for all flesh, whether man or beast, has its soul in the blood, and it is not fitting to mix the soul that is destined to destruction with that which is to live [in the hereafter]. Rather, it is to be as an atonement upon the altar to be acceptable before G-d. This is the sense of the expression, Therefore I said to the children of Israel: No soul of you shall eat blood, meaning: “Because the blood is identical with the soul, and it is not proper that one soul devour another, therefore I had compassion upon man’s life and gave it [the animal’s soul] to him upon the altar, so that the soul of the animal should effect atonement for his soul.” Thus we have been taught in the Sifre: “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood. Rabbi Yehudah says, [From the fact that it states, only be steadfast, which indicates that a special effort was required], you learn that they were addicted to eating blood etc. For the blood is the life — this teaches you why it was prohibited. And thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh — this prohibits the eating of a limb cut from a living animal.” This is a hint and proof for what we have explained. It is for this reason that He further commanded that we are to cover up all blood of an [edible] wild beast or fowl [which have been ritually slaughtered] because their blood is not brought upon the altar, for even of fowls only two species [i.e., young pigeons and turtle doves] may be brought as offerings, and they too are not slaughtered [in the usual way]; but in the case of cattle, most of them that are found among men may be slaughtered to the Glorious Name and their blood is used for atonement, and it is therefore not to be covered. There was no necessity to require the covering of the blood of an ordinary [unconsecrated] animal, since the slaughtering of cattle for ordinary meat was not permitted in the desert, and even afterwards [when Israel came into the Land of Israel and a meal of ordinary meat was permitted], the commandment of the Torah is directed to the majority [and since in most cases cattle were brought as offerings, and their blood would be needed for the altar, therefore He did not require covering of the blood even if the cattle were not slaughtered as offerings].

"It atones with the life-force" — through the life-force within it does it atone. The meaning is: a life-force in place of a life-force. Some interpret ["with the life-force"] as equivalent to "for your souls [nefashot]," but this has no other sense, since it already says "to make atonement for your souls."

כי נפש הבשר בדם היא, for the life-force of all flesh is in its blood; why is the fact that the life-force is in the blood repeated twice in this verse? According to what I have written earlier this verse explains why the soul of the person eating blood is destroyed. The reason is that the blood contains the נפש, the essence of the animal it comes from. Consuming that life-force results in the soul- i.e. life-force of the person who consumed it becoming diluted with this spiritually inferior life-force. We still need to investigate why the Torah chose the expression נפש הבשר, "life-force of the flesh," instead of writing "the life-force is within the blood?" I believe G'd was anxious to answer a potential questioner that if the imbibing of the animal is so detrimental to the soul of a Jew, why did He not forbid the consumption of the flesh (meat) also? After all, the flesh too contained the life-force of the animal so that eating it would also cause irreparable harm to a Jewish soul? The Torah therefore repeats that it is only the blood in the flesh which contains the essence of the animal not the flesh itself. The essence of the animal is found in its blood, and not in the flesh. This is the meaning of נפש הבשר בדם היא. G'd did not make a human being in such a fashion. In the case of man, the life-force is not only in the blood but also in the flesh and the bones. Our sages refer to this life-force as הבלה, a certain moisture which survives in the bones of the righteous for many years after they have died. This is why they do not rot away. On the other hand, the wicked who are compared to animals are those who will not be resurrected when the time comes seeing that all their bones have dried out and have rotted away completely so that not an iota of their one-time life-force still exists. ואני נתתיו לכם, "As for Me, I have given to you, etc." The Torah is telling us that the proof of the fact that the blood of the animal contains its "soul," its life-force, is that G'd allowed us to offer up the blood of the animal on the altar as a means to obtain atonement for our inadvertent trespasses. The process may be called נפש תחת נפש, G'd accepts one "soul" in lieu of another soul, i.e. the soul (life-force) of the sinner. The verse also intends to warn us not to kill animals without an ulterior purpose. We are only allowed to take the life of an animal (the ones which are fit for consumption by Jews) to help us atone for our sins. The sequence of the words נתתיו לכם על המזבח are intended to demonstrate that the "gift" G'd has made us of the domesticated animals on earth carries with it some restrictions. We are not absolute owners of these animals to do with them whatever we please; rather they should serve to help us recapture our standing with the Almighty in the event that we became guilty of certain sins. We are taught in Sanhedrin 2 that if a domestic animal is guilty of an offence for which the Torah decreed that said animal has to die, such as initiating sexual intercourse with a human being, it is judged by a tribunal of no fewer than 23 judges, the same number required to judge a human being, someone who has killed a human being. It is not permitted to slaughter such an animal except when one wants to consume its meat. In Deut. 12,20 the Torah is on record as permitting man to indulge his craving for meat. In other words, the Torah had to write a special verse in order to permit us to eat meat which was not intended as sacrificial meat.

כי נפש הבשר בדם היא, “for the life of the flesh is in the blood;” the word הוא has the vowel chirik under the first letter where it is spelled with the letter ו, and the last time it appears in this paragraph in verse 14, it is also read as if it had been spelled with a ו as if it had been written with the letter י i.e. feminine. The two times in between when the word appears it is read as masculine, and it is spelled both times with the letter ו as appropriate. בנפש יכפר, and it can therefore atone for someone else’s life. (Ibn Ezra)

כי נפש הבשר בדם הוא ואני נתתיו לכם על המזבח, “for the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you on the Altar.” Nachmanides provides a number of reasons to account for the prohibition to consume blood. One is that the blood is the part of the animal consecrated for G’d, i.e. sprinkled on the Altar, just as certain fat parts of the animals which are also prohibited even in animals which were not offered as sacrifices (compare Leviticus 3,16). As to the prohibition of the blood of free-roaming beasts (which are not fit as sacrifices) the Torah did not see fit to forbid the blood of some animals while permitting that of others. It is a decree designed to prevent us from making an error as to which blood may be eaten. Another reason for the prohibition of blood is that the blood represents the essence of the animal and G’d had never permitted that the essence (soul) of an animal be eaten. Only the meat had been permitted. When G’d permitted Noach the consumption of animals this was because having saved the animals Noach had acquired a right to their bodies. However, G’d permitted only he bodies of the animals not their life-force (soul). It is altogether not appropriate to mix human life-forces with animal life-essence. A nation such as a Jewish people, recipients of the holy Torah, must preserve the purity of their bodies so that they can receive input from intelligence emanating in the celestial spheres Furthermore, we have been commanded to train ourselves to be merciful, soft-hearted, and not cruel. If we were to eat the blood we would assimilate animalistic tendencies within us and become cruel, ultimately resembling animals more than angels. The fact is that food consumed is assimilated by the body even though it is converted, transformed in the process. Character traits possessed by animals will surface in people eating their blood. According to the view expressed by Nachmanides the digestive process involving the assimilation of blood is different from that of converting meat-tissue; seeing it requires less of a process of digestion, more of the original enters our bloodstream and affects our tendencies. All of these considerations caused the Torah to write: “for the personality of the flesh (in each respective animal) resides within its blood.” Life-forces destined for destruction such as the animal to be slaughtered should not be mixed with life-forces meant to remain alive. On the contrary, the very life-force to be sacrificed is to rehabilitate that of its owner through having been elevated to serve as an offering on G’d’s altar. Maimonides, writing on reasons underlying the various commandments, (Moreh Nevuchim 3,46) says that the prohibition to eat blood aims at removing man from getting involved with demons. When the Israelites departed from Egypt they were experts in the discipline of demons, etc. They had picked up this knowledge from the Egyptians who were very much preoccupied with all kinds of such phenomena. Whenever the Egyptians felt the need to consult the demons they would dig a hole in the ground fill it with blood, something that would attract the demons. When the Egyptians wanted information about the future they would eat from that blood as they considered it demon-food, hoping to acquire demonic qualities through ingesting the kind of food eaten by the demons. This explains the verse in Leviticus 19,26 לא תאכלו על הדם, “do not eat over blood;” it is an injunction by the Torah against a practice by the Israelites at that time to eat in the presence of blood (Samuel I 14,33). King Saul upraided them saying: “here the people commit the sin of eating the animals they slaughtered in the presence of their blood.” [They did not eat the blood of the animals. Ed.]. The Torah forbade the eating of blood as the Torah is always concerned with destroying foolish notions entertained by the pagans. When the Torah not only forbade the consumption of the blood but commanded that the whole negative influence on man by blood be reversed, it commanded as the means to do that that the blood be sprinkled on G’d’s altar and thus play a role in man’s rehabilitation from sin. Seeing that the matter of the demons [whom the Egyptians believed to be reincarnated in the bodies of goats, Ed.] was a form of idolatry, the Torah warned (verse 10) “I will set My face against any person consuming the blood and I will cut it off from its people.” The wording is almost identical to G’d’s warning of what would happen to people practicing the cult of Moloch (Leviticus 20,6). Thus far Maimonides in the Moreh. Nachmanides, in commenting on the above, writes that if these considerations were indeed the principal reason for the prohibition to eat blood, why did the Torah bother to write the word נפש every time the subject of blood is being discussed? This is the reason he wrote an explanation which is far more acceptable and applicable in our time as well. The fact is that the wording in the text does not support the reasons offered by Maimonides. Being aware of this, he wrote the other reasons which I quoted at the beginning of this verse. We need to add further comments on the verses dealing with the prohibition to eat blood, i.e. that once the Torah writes: כי נפש הבשר בדם היא,”for the life-force of the flesh is in its blood,” whereas on another occasion the Torah writes almost the opposite, i.e. כי נפש כל בשר דמו בנפשו הוא. From these two verses we can see that whereas it is true that the life-force נפש resides within the flesh, the reverse is true also, i.e. that the flesh, life-force, נפש and blood are as intertwined as is wine which has been diluted with water. The water and the wine are inextricably mixed with one another and cannot be separated anymore from one another. Nachmanides writes later (on verse 14) where the Torah says; “the blood of any flesh (creature) you shall not eat for the life-force (נפש) of any creature is its blood,” that this verse proves that the blood itself is the life-force (נפש) of any creature.” Once blood and flesh have become part of one organism they have become inseparable, i.e. one cannot survive without the other; it is like the substance and the form of a body. One without the other is meaningless. The blood which the Torah calls the נפש, the life-force, the essence, is that which courses through the arteries and veins, known in Talmudic terms as דם שותת, “blood which flows gently.” Such blood, be it black (initially ) or red, does not burst forth in an arc but runs to the ground immediately below the point where it leaves the body. The next part of blood bursts forth in a קלוח, gushes forth. The last רביעית of the blood in the arteries is that which actually causes death. The first two categories of blood, though its loss need not be lethal, is called דם הנפש, “blood of the essence,” but it is not the life-force itself seeing that neither human nor beast dies as a result of losing that blood. The repetition of the word נפש several times teaches that the penalty of karet which applies to consumption of the last רביעית (measurement of approx. 150 grams) of blood does not only apply to that part of the blood but also to the previous דם קילוח and דם שותת.

כי נפש כל בשר בדם הוא, “for every living creature’s life-force is in its blood.” From this we learn that the reason for our not being allowed to eat blood is that the purpose of the blood is to secure atonement for man. It is part of the essence of the creature. The reason is the same as the reason for the prohibition of eating certain fat parts that are burned up on the altar. These too serve to secure man atonement for his sins. For man to eat such parts of the animal would be counterproductive, as he would deprive himself of the chance to achieve atonement This leaves us with the question why the blood and fat of animals which are not allowed to be offered on the altar is also forbidden? Also, why then did the Torah not forbid all kinds of fat, not only that on the kidneys and the liver? The fat parts that are not easily identifiable from a distance have not been designated as atonement to be burned up on the altar. Seeing that all blood looks alike, no such distinction was made as to which part of the blood requires sprinkling on the altar, etc. Maimonides’ approach to the subject parallels that of Nachmanides, i.e the Torah widens the framework of the prohibition to make such practices as sacrificing to the demons even more unlikely. Ibn Ezra points out that the resident stranger has not been mentioned in this paragraph at all, as opposed to the paragraph dealing with meat offerings and burnt offerings, as the Israelites in the Land of Israel are obligated to enforce that such resident strangers do not offer sacrifices to their deities. On the other hand, when discussing the prohibition of eating blood, the stranger resident in the Land of Israel is mentioned as, seeing that the blood represents the life force of the animal, such a stranger is also forbidden to eat that blood.

Therefore I have said to the children of Israel: No person among you shall eat blood, and the proselyte who has converted among you shall not eat blood.

כל נפש מכם NO SOUL OF YOU [SHALL EAT BLOOD] — This is stated in addition to v. 10 to admonish the adults about their young children (that they should not permit them blood to eat — for “no soul” shall eat blood) (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 7 6; Yevamot 114a).

על כן אמרתי, “therefore I have said, etc;” this is a reference to Leviticus 3,17.

And any man of the children of Israel, or from the proselytes who have converted among you, who hunts and catches a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten — he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.

אשר יצוד WHO HUNTETH — I seem to have here only the law that the blood of hunted beasts and fowls caught now by hunting must be covered with dust. Whence do I know that this applies also to geese and fowls which have been kept in the house having already been caught? Scripture therefore states יצוד] ציד], “who hunts a hunted thing"— hunted under any circumstances whether now or before. If this be so why does Scripture at all state אשר יצוד (let it merely state 'אשר ישחט וכו)? But it uses the term “hunting” to teach that one should not eat meat except after such toilsome preparation (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 11 2; Chullin 84a). אשר יאכל THAT MAY BE EATEN — This is especially mentioned to the exclusion of unclean animals (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 11 4).

"Who hunts game — a wild animal" — such as a deer or a gazelle. "Or a bird that may be eaten" — from this verse as well we learn that we must not allow the resident alien to eat in our land pig, horse, or a bird of prey, which is impure. It is fitting that, because He commanded that no blood be eaten and that no blood be seen poured out except at the altar, Hashem commanded that all blood not brought to the altar be covered — so that one who sees it, upon seeing it, whether it is the blood of a deer, a gazelle, or a bird, should not think that a sacrifice has been offered to idols. In the portion Re'eh I will explain the deeper meaning of this verse.

אשר יצוד ציד. Seeing that in the main, these free roaming beasts’ habitat is in desolate regions of the earth, areas in which the kind of demons we mentioned are at home, (compare Isaiah 13,21 “there ostriches shall make their home and there shall satyrs (demons) dance.”) the Torah therefore forbids to leave the blood of these beasts exposed and ordered us to cover it with earth in order to forestall any chance that this blood be used to feed the demons. It goes on to say:

אשד יצוד ציד חיה או עוף, who hunts any beast or fowl, etc. We need to analyse why the Torah had to write this whole introduction instead of merely writing that if someone slaughters or otherwise kills a free-roaming animal or fowl he has to cover its blood with earth. Furthermore, if it is a decree without the Torah revealing its rationale, why does the Torah not merely write יכסהו, "he shall cover its blood with dust," instead of writing וכסהו, which implies that he had to fulfil another commandment prior to covering the blood of the creature in question. 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. I believe we can also detect in the expression ושפך וכסהו an allusion to the need to cover only some of the blood with earth whereas the rest may be poured down the sink, compare Chulin 88.

ציד חיה, “this is an all-inclusive term, including all free roaming beasts that are kosher.” או עוף, “or fowl;” regardless if few or many; from this expression our sages derived that if one killed 100 or one beast or bird in one location the covering of their blood can be combined into a single operation. (Sifra) חיה או עוף, “four legged free roaming beasts or birds;” the two categories of creatures are lumped together to teach that they share a common denominator, i.e. this legislation applies to creatures that are not acceptable as potential sacrifices on the altar. But some birds are acceptable for some sacrifices; their blood need not be covered. וכסהו בעפר, “its blood is to be covered,” so that it will not be fit to be eaten.

When he hunts any beast or bird, etc. The main reason for covering [the blood] is to create a sign so that one does not come to eat blood. But with domesticated animals, there is no need for this sign because one is already cautioned and aware through seeing that the blood is placed on the altar, as it says, I have given it to you upon the altar to atone for your souls (Leviticus 17:11). And the meaning is not that this is the main reason for the prohibition of blood, for if so, why would He prohibit the blood of wild animals and birds? Rather, the main reason for the prohibition is that one should not eat the soul along with the flesh. And He provides proof that the soul is contained within the blood, for I have given it upon the altar to atone for your souls (Leviticus 17:11). This atonement is certainly a soul in exchange for a soul, and from this you can understand on your own the reason for the prohibition of blood — that it is because of the soul within it, and this reason applies equally to domesticated animals, wild animals, and birds. However, the covering [of blood] is to create a sign so that one does not come to eat it. But with the blood of domesticated animals, no sign is needed because it is sufficient that one sees the blood being placed on the altar, and this is an indication that the blood is the soul. Furthermore, it is not proper for the servant to eat from the master’s table. But with the blood of wild animals and birds, there is no [other] sign, therefore He commanded to make a partial sign through covering. And even though turtledoves and young pigeons are [also] offered on the altar, they are nullified in their minority, as most birds are not [offered] on the altar like domesticated animals. Another explanation is that since the flesh of wild animals and birds are not readily available, as they require hunting and come to a person through great effort or at a high cost, and because these things are especially precious to him, there is concern that he might eat the meat with the blood. Therefore, one needs to create a sign through covering [the blood]. And our Sages (Chullin 84) said: “From here the Torah teaches you proper conduct, that one should not eat meat except with this preparation.” And the reason for this you will find later in Parshat Re’eh in the verse, When the Lord your God enlarges your territory, and you say, “I will eat meat…” See there.

אשר יצוד ציד חיה או עוף אשר יאכל, “who will trap a beast of bird of the kind that may be eaten;” seeing that the eating of any kind of blood is prohibited, and such blood cannot be offered on the altar either, it would be insensitive to leave such blood uncovered. The Torah therefore decrees burial of a kind for the lifeblood of such pure animals. Moreover, unless the blood of such animals is covered, anyone seeing it might conclude that this blood was the remainder of blood poured out after part had been sprinkled on an altar as a sacrificial rite dedicated to idolatry. Ibn Ezra is convinced that here too resident strangers in the Land of Israel are forbidden to eat such impure animals as donkeys, horses or birds of prey.

וכסהו בעפר, for then it will no longer be fit as food.

For the life of all flesh — its blood is its life. And I said to the children of Israel: The blood of all flesh you shall not eat, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.

דמו בנפשו הוא means its blood represents its life (במקום הנפש), in as much as its life is depending on it. כי נפש כל בשר דמו הוא means the life is (is identical with) the blood; דם and בשר are masculine, נפש is feminine.

THE BLOOD THEREOF IS ‘B’NAFSHO’ (ALL ONE WITH THE LIFE THEREOF). “Its blood represents its life, since life is dependent upon the blood.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct. Rather, it is possible to explain that the word b’nafsho here means “in its body,” Scripture thus stating, “for as to the life of all flesh, it is the blood in its body.” Similarly [we find the word nefesh meaning “body” in these verses]: ‘Nafsho’ (his person) was laid in iron; seventy ‘nefesh’ (persons); he [the Nazirite] shall not come near to a dead ‘nefesh,’ meaning “a body,” since “the body” of anyone that is possessed of a nefesh (soul) is also called nefesh. In my opinion Scripture mentioned three expressions with reference to blood, which constitute but one reason. First it stated, For the life of the flesh is in the blood. Then it changed and said [in Verse 14 before us], For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof, meaning to say that the blood is the life, and the life is in the blood, as both are mixed together, similarly to wine when diluted with water, in which case the water is in the wine and the wine in the water, and each one is “in” the other. Afterwards it explained [in the second half of Verse 14 before us, stating for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof], that the blood is the very life, meaning to say that both have become one inseparable substance, so that you can never find blood without life nor life without blood, as is known of the air which originates in the heart, that it is the hyly from which proceed all dispositions [of man], supplying the substance which gives nutrition and makes blood, and it is the blood which in turn creates it and sustains it. [The relationship between life and blood is thus] like that of matter and form in all physical creatures, where the one cannot be found without the other. Now our Rabbis interpreted the three punishments of excision which Scripture mentioned with reference to blood in the following way: “One verse prohibits the eating of that blood with which life escapes [when cutting the throat of the offering, since it has been given for atonement upon the altar]; one verse prohibits the eating of blood which escapes when slaughtering [an ordinary, unconsecrated animal], and one verse prohibits the eating of blood, that [of a fowl or wild animal, which when slaughtered] must be covered.” This saying of the Rabbis explains why the punishment of excision was mentioned three times, but the reason for the different Scriptural expressions concerning the life and the blood [of the animal] is as I have explained.

"Its blood is its life-force" — it is bound up with the life-force, for it is well known that the vessels issuing from the left side of the heart divide in two, half for blood and half for the breath-spirit, like olive oil with the light. "And I said to the Children of Israel" — its meaning is: and I have already said, referring to the passage mentioned above.

כי נפש כל בשר דמו בנפשו הוא, “for the life-force of all living creatures is its blood” [or contained with its blood. Ed.] (a reference to the way the author described such an almost invisible essence in the blood in his commentary on verse 7). בנפשו, including this invisible life-force contained therein. This is because the blood contains something almost intangible. Seeing this ingredient is the closest to anything completely intangible in this terrestrial universe, it is an ideal nutrient for the demons and for those who consort with them. The Torah says: ואומר לבני ישראל, although I have permitted the gentiles the consumption of such lifeblood, I have prohibited it to the Children of Israel already in Leviticus 7,26 seeing that the life essence of living creatures is contained in it while the animal was alive and it is liable to transfer some of these animalistic characteristics kind to the persons ingesting it as food. The Torah wants to protect the Jewish people from absorbing more animalistic tendencies than we already possess.

דמו בנפשו, its blood is bound up with its essence. The meaning of this expression is that the blood is equivalent to its life-force [the life-force being something abstract. Ed.]. Here the Torah has provided us with the reason why we have to cover i.e. "bury" the blood of the above-named categories of animals. Seeing that the blood is its life-force, it is a matter of showing some respect for that life-force. The Torah also commanded that the remains of a human being be buried only as a demonstration of respect for the life (or life-force) of a human being. The reason the Torah did not use the same syntax when it described the free-roaming animals as it did when it referred to the pure domesticated mammals where the Torah described the blood as דמו בנפשו, may be because the "pure" domesticated animal possesses a "soul," something which has been placed in its blood, whereas in the case of free-roaming animals or fowl the blood itself is in lieu of the "soul" G'd provided for the "pure" domesticated animals. This explains why such free-roaming animals and fowls are not suitable as sacrifices on the altar to achieve atonement for their owners with the exception of the pigeon and the turtle-dove. Even in the case of the latter, their blood is not sprinkled on the altar, seeing it does not represent the "soul" of the bird but its blood, i.e "soul" equivalent has been removed when the priest pinched the neck of the pigeon instead of slaughtering it. כי נפש כל בשד דמו היא, for the life-force of all flesh is its blood. The Torah explains that the reason it forbade us to eat the blood of such animals is not that it is used to attain atonement for our own souls, i.e. the life we had forfeited by our sin, in which case there would have been a reason to distinguish between the blood of those animals which are fit as a sacrifice and those which are not. Rather, the reason is that we are not to consume the essence of such an animal. כל אוכליו יכדת, anyone eating it will be cut off. I have explained already why this penalty is appropriate. The reason the Torah writes the word אוכליו in the plural whereas the penalty יכרת is in the singular is to alert us to the effect of the penalty. כרת means the withdrawal of the life-sustaining connection with the soul's celestial root. Seeing that all the Jewish souls have a common root, any reference to that root is in the singular. The reason the Torah describes the people consuming such blood as אוכליו, i.e. in the plural is, that there are many who derive some satisfaction of what a single person eats. The source of physical vitality attached to the celestial root contains a variety of preparatory steps to enable it to be absorbed successfully by bodies which have become fused with a soul. Although the body is essentially a material phenomenon G'd has created a force called נפש whose nature it is to develop liaison with material forces and which develops an urge to participate in the experiences a body finds pleasant. G'd created this force so that the soul would be able to function harmoniously within the body. The corresponding force, i.e. a somewhat diluted version of the purely spiritual soul, נשמה, is known as רוח, spirit; it is called thus because just as the wind is a phenomenon on earth but remains intangible, so this phenomenon we call רוח, spirit, performs both a physical and a spiritual function. When man eats, i.e. when the body eats, these other parts of the human personality also receive their sustenance from the food absorbed first by the body. This is why the Torah speaks about multiple אוכליו, "beings which eat of the blood." We may perceive of the following as all partaking of the nourishment a human being absorbs in ascending order. The body, the animalistic life-force נפש; the רוח, and finally the נשמה. As to the element subject to the כרת penalty, this is applied only to the חוט החסד, the "umbilical cord of love" connecting the נשמה to its celestial root. When this cord is severed from its root all other parts of the spiritual side of man will dry up and wither automatically.. We may also understand the verse on the basis of Torat Kohanim which explained on the word בנפש in verse 10 that the penalty applies to an individual eating and not to a community eating blood as the animalistic life-force contained in the blood is not powerful enough to destroy the fabric of the collective souls of such a community. This is alluded to here when the Torah refers to a number of people who eat but to the destruction of only a single soul. I have tried to understand why G'd commanded that the blood of free-roaming animals or fowl has to be buried whereas the blood of pure domestic animals which have not been offered as a sacrifice does not need to be covered with earth. It is understandable that when the blood has been offered on the altar that no further procedure is needed; however, seeing that even when the Temple was standing most animals which were slaughtered were not offered as sacrifices, why did the blood of such animals not enjoy burial? Seeing we have explained that the "soul" of such a בהמה טהורה is superior to the life-force G'd supplied to free-roaming animals and fowl, why do we appear to discriminate against the בהמה טהורה by pouring away its life-blood instead of according it the honour of burial? Our question is reinforced by the fact that G'd rejected all free-roaming animals and almost all birds as unfit to serve as a sacrifice? When we consider that I have explained that the blood of the free-roaming beast is itself its "soul" i.e. its life-force, as distinct from the pure domestic animal whose life-force is separate from its blood though carried by its blood, it emerges that G'd commanded only blood which is at the same time the essence of the vitality of the creature to be buried. Any blood which does not represent the essence of the creature does not need to be accorded such a symbolic funeral. Although the blood of the pure domestic animal contains its life-force, its "soul," the fact remains that its blood and its "soul" are not identical. Covering of the blood is required only for the מורגש, the tangibly peceptible, not for the היולי, that which is perceived only in the abstract, in its potential. I wish to pursue the thought of why G'd decided to create the categories of the pure domestic animals as being so essentially different from the free-roaming beasts, animals which at first glance appear to have so much in common. We will understand the reason better if we first appreciate the factors which enable G'd's various creatures to fulfil their overall purpose and function on earth. Inasmuch as G'd is the source of all life in its various forms, He has made sure that all His creatures are equipped with the wherewithal to function in nature. He made all living creatures as composites of four basic raw materials, i.e. fire, air (spirit), water, and dust. The origin of these four raw materials is something that has not been made accessible to us, it is (at least partially) spiritual in nature and is described in kabbalistic literature as the "four legs of the throne of the Almighty," Ezekiel describes four carriers of this throne as creatures with the faces of four different animals including man in the opening chapter of his book as carriers of G'd's throne. There are also four angels who correspond to this basic "foursome" of creation, i.e. Gabriel, Rafael, Michael, and Nuriel. These three "foursomes" may be perceived as providing providing the background to the creation of a physical universe, the gradual reduction of pure spirit to something material. Each "foursome" is a preparatory level to a lower level of spirituality, something closer to the physical material world. The "foursome" described as part of G'd's throne in Ezekiel are the four categories of creatures which form the basis of life on earth. The face of אדם refers to the human species; the face of the ox refers to the pure domestic animals; the face of the lion refers to the free-roaming beasts on earth; and, finally, the face of the eagle refers to the fowl. Just as there are four categories of life on earth [living creatures containing blood Ed.] so there are four categories of inert beings, i.e. fire, wind, water, and dust. All creatures are composites of these four elements. Even amongst the intangible souls or life-forces G'd has created we find "foursomes." The highest of these are the celestial lights G'd has created which are almost part of the essence of G'd Himself. In every single sphere of creation we find the active, the dispenser, the male on one hand, and the passive, the recipient, the female. In the final analysis even the most inert component of our physical universe is the recipient of celestial input, i.e. from the region of the throne of G'd. Let us now examine the nature of the celestial influences the foursomes in our world are exposed to. Inasmuch as the face of one of the foursomes in Ezekiel's vision is that of the ox, i.e. a pure domestic animal, it is reasonable to suppose that the pure domestic animals in our universe i.e. its counterpart in our regions, receive their spiritual input via their celestial counterpart. However, the face of the lion represents an impure free-roaming animal. It is reasonable therefore to assume that all free-roaming animals (including the pure ones) receive the kind of spiritual input from the celestial regions associated with their counterpart the lion and what it represents. They are therefore deprived of primary positive spiritual input. The same applies to the fowl, seeing that the face of the eagle in Ezekiel's vision is also that of an impure category of bird. We need to examine why the counterpart of these "faces on the throne of G'd" have not been granted positive spiritual input as did the pure domestic animals which are recipients of spiritual input from the ox in Ezekiel's vision? Furthermore what is the source of the criteria which enabled some free-roaming beasts such as the gazelle, etc. to be considered pure beasts, fit for consumption by Jews? Remember that there are levels of perceptions which the recipient's mind is incapable of perceiving even if the source from which such perceptive powers emanate makes an effort to transmit such receptive power. Torah scholars are well aware of the fact that there are gradations of such perceptive powers and some of them are endowed with greater such powers than others. [I believe we can best describe what the author is trying to tell us when we imagine the receiver of a person equipped to handle a minimum of 5000 volt being bombarded from a transmitter which sends out impulses of 1000 volt maximum. The receiver in the hands of the person described would not be able to handle such transmissions. I shall continue to paraphrase the comments of our author as I feel that rendering them literally would not result in the reader's enlightenment. Ed.] The lion and eagle in our world are to be perceived as possessing such receivers having made efforts to exceed the natural receptive powers granted to them. As a result, the impulses emitted from their celestial counterparts are largely wasted on them and they are forced to stay outside the garden that G'd had intended for them to be part of seeing they have not achieved the spiritual goals they were meant to achieve. As a result of being under-achievers in G'd's overall scheme for His universe, He commanded the Israelites to keep a distance from such animals so as not to absorb any of their failings. We know from Deut. 4,11 that in order to remain both spiritually and physically alive one needs to maintain a close affinity to G'd and His commandments. We know from Job 14,4 that it is reserved for G'd alone to know by what devious paths purity can develop out of something that started with an impure base. If the original bird in Ezekiel's vision was the eagle, symbol of an impure bird, and so was the eagle in our world, this does not mean that amongst all the fowl some will not evolve which bear the mark of purity, such as the pigeons amongst the domesticated birds or the chickens, geese, turkeys, etc.. The same holds true for the free-roaming mammals. Although their archtype is the lion, this did not prevent certain categories evolving into pure free-roaming beasts such as the hart, the gazelle, and the roebuck. Due to their being cut off, or better, having caused themselves to be cut off from their celestial counterpart and not having received the required positive spiritual input from the source of their part of the celestial "foursome," the only level of "soul" these animals possess is their blood itself.

כי נפש כל בשר דמו בנפשו הוא“ for the life of any flesh is all one with its blood;” Lest you say that it is proper that the blood of sacrifices is prohibited since their blood provides atonement. And similarly that the blood of all animals is prohibited because some of these animals become sacrifices and their blood atones. But the blood of free-roaming animals and fowl should be allowed since their blood is never offered as an atonement on the altar. Therefore the Torah says to cover the blood of fowl and free-roaming animals. The verse has been somewhat abbreviated, and should really have read בדמו נפשו, “its life is inextricably bound up with its blood.” Another example of a similarly abbreviated verse would be Psalms 65,5: היכלך, apparently: “Your Sanctuary,” but in reality: “the Sanctuary of Your holiness.” ואמר לבני ישראל, this line must be understood as: ואמר הבר לבני ישראל, “as I have already said to the Children of Israel.”

דמו בנפשו, “its blood represents its life.” According to Rashi, the meaning of this expression is that the blood of such an animal [that is not equipped with a soul, נשמה, is its life-force Ed.], acts in lieu of a soul. When deprived of its life it dies. Nachmanides writes that Rashi’s interpretation is not correct, but that it is possible to understand the meaning of the word נפש as an alternate word for גוף, body. We find something analogous in connection with Psalms 105,18 where the words ברזל באה נפשו, normally translated as “an iron collar put on his neck,” may be understood as describing a strong body as equivalent of a life force. [In the context there when Joseph’s encounter with Mrs Potiphar is described as Joseph trading “irons” for a “sword,” i.e.. he came close to being executed, losing his נפש, for allowing himself almost to be seduced by that woman, seeing he had provided her with that opportunity by being alone in the house with her. Ed.] Personally, (Nachmanides speaking) I think that the Torah has provided us with three meanings for the term דם, seeing that each time the penalty of karet is mentioned alongside. This teaches that unless we kept in mind all three parts of the definition we could not properly understand the subject.

And any person who eats an animal that died on its own or that was torn — whether among the native-born or among the proselytes — shall immerse his garments and bathe in water, and shall remain impure until evening, and then he shall be clean.

אשר תאכל נבלה וטרפה [AND EVERY SOUL] THAT EATETH CARRION, OR THAT WHICH WAS TORN … [HE SHALL BOTH WASH HIS GARMENTS AND LAVE HIMSELF IN WATER] — Scripture is here speaking of the carrion of a clean bird which causes uncleanness only during the time it passes through the gullet (lit., it is being swallowed in the gullet) and what Scripture teaches you here is that it makes one unclean by eating of it [but it does not defile one by touching it]. The טרפה mentioned here (though being superfluous since a טרפה which died) is of course also a נבלה and thus causes uncleanness just as any other נבלה is mentioned only for the sake of the correct interpretation of the word נבלה. For thus we learn (in Sifra): One might think that the carrion of an unclean bird causes uncleanness in the moment it passes through the gullet! Scripture therefore adds the word טרפה to intimate that this law of נבלה applies only to that class of birds among which טרפה is possible, thus excluding unclean birds for in their class a רפהט can never occur (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 7; Zevachim 69b).

Because the verse mentioned a wild animal that is not brought as an offering, and likewise a bird, it also mentions: "every person who eats a carcass" [nevelah] that is not brought as an offering. It too is mentioned on account of the hunt. If one transgresses intentionally, he violates a negative commandment and is flogged; if inadvertently, he brings a sin-offering. If someone objects and argues: but does not the verse say "you shall give it to the resident alien within your gates and he may eat it" [Deut. 14:21]? — the answer is that this refers to the resident alien [ger toshav]. So too it is written [here regarding] the alien who dwells among you — we do not allow him to eat a carcass. Rather, it is the foreigner who comes to our gates to whom we give it and he eats it outside.

וכל נפש אשר תאכל נבלה וטרפה, after the Torah wrote about the prohibition of eating blood, something which if permitted would draw us closer to the circle of demons, it speaks about the prohibition of eating meat from diseased animals or animals which have died of causes other than ritual slaughter. A nation that concentrates on attracting the holy spirit to itself would do something counterproductive if consuming such carcasses which are the home base of spiritually negative influences. We know that this is so from the Torah’s prohibition of trying to derive spiritual inspiration from the dead or parts of them. (compare Deuteronomy 18,11 where consulting ghosts or other death-related matters is specifically outlawed, and we are ordered not to tolerate people who practice such cults in our land.)

וכל נפש אשר תאכל גבלה, and every person eating an animal which died of natural causes, etc. The reason the paragraph commences with the letter ו before כל is to remind us that all the rules which apply to the eight different categories of Israelites and proselytes we listed in the last paragraph (verse 10) apply here also. The Torah here mentioned two categories, i.e. אזרח וגר, natural-born Jew and proselyte, to tell us that these are respective "headings" for the various categories of natural-born Jews and proselytes.

וכל נפש, “and any person,” i.e. even minors. אשר תאכל נבלה וטרפה, “that eats either dead fowl that has died by natural causes or by having been fatally wounded;” this was repeated as seeing these are not acceptable on the altar I might have thought that they are permitted as an ordinary part of our diet. Seeing that this was the point where the Torah enlarged on a number of forbidden foods it was appropriate not to neglect mention of these last two categories.

וכל נפש אשר יאכל נבלה וטרפה באזרח ובגר, “any person native or proselyte, that will eat a dead carcass (natural death) or a beast that had been torn and died as a result,” Ibn Ezra writes that in view of the Torah having written about animals not fit as sacrifices on the altar, it also mentions two other categories of animals that are in a state of being unfit for the altar, though under different circumstances those animals would have qualified as sacrificial offerings.

אשר תאכל נבלה, even a minor will become ritually defiled. [because the Torah addresses itself to כל נפש, “every living person.” Ed.]

But if he does not immerse them and does not bathe his flesh, he shall bear his guilt.

ונשא עונו THEN HE SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY — If he eats sacred food or enters the Sanctuary in this state of uncleanness he becomes liable to excision for this uncleanness just as for doing these things in any other state of uncleanness (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 14). ובשרו לא ירחץ ונשא עונו [BUT IF HE WASH THEM NOT], NOR LAVE HIS FLESH HE SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY — For the omission to lave his body before entering the Sanctuary or before eating sacred food he is liable to excision, but for the omission to wash his clothes he is liable to lashes only (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 13).

"He shall bear his iniquity" — permanently. And He will pardon his iniquity through the punishment that Hashem brings upon him. Because the verse mentioned the matter of the goat-demons that they had practiced in Egypt, this passage and the passage of the forbidden relations are juxtaposed to the "deeds of the land of Canaan," as is made explicit at its close.

ונשא עונו. In accordance with the degree of spiritual contamination he has brought upon himself. There are different degrees of such spiritual contamination, of course, and the punishment will fit the seriousness of the transgression

ונשא עונו, if he either consumes sacred meat or sacred products in a state of ritual impurity, or if he enters the holy precincts in such a state.