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 Cour...

"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 la...

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:...

"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 of...

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 Yoss...

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...

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 a...

"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 a...

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...

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.