Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

AND IF HIS OFFERING BE A SACRIFICE OF PEACE-OFFERINGS: IF HE OFFER OF THE HERD, WHETHER MALE OR FEMALE. The reason why the burnt-offering may only be male, whereas in the case of the peace-offering it can be male or female, and the sin-offering must only be female, is very clear, since the olah (the burnt-offering) is as its name indicates, [i.e., “ascension” — being that it reaches above all Divine attributes], whilst sh’lamim (the peace-offering) is of the expressions: and all My pleasures ‘yashlim’ (he will perform — literally: he will “perfect”); ‘avanim sh’leimoth’ (whole stones). The sin-offering is in order to appease Him with the present that goeth before Him. I have already written on this matter., 46:1 (Vol. I, p. 542): “Jacob offered peace-offerings in order to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him …”. See also ibid., 32:21 (pp. 402-403). The guilt-offering must be a male, because the sin-offering is brought for those transgressions [for which, if committed wilfully, the sinner] incurs the penalty of excision, in order that the spirit return unto G-d who gave it, but the guilt-offering is not brought for those transgressions for which [if committed wilfully] one incurs excision, and therefore it is as if it were for a pleasing odor just like the burnt-offering. The sin-offering of the prince is a he-goat, because the prince is the sovereign unto whom judgment [rightfully] belongs, and he fights the battles of G-d and lives by his sword; therefore his offering is the same as the he-goat brought in case of idol-worship [by the congregation].

AND AARON’S SONS SHALL CAUSE IT TO ASCEND IN FUMES. This is like His saying further on, And the priest shall cause them to ascend in fumes, for there He alludes to all those portions of the offering which are burnt on the altar, [hence He refers to them in the plural, while here He alludes to the offering as such, and therefore He speaks of it in the singular]. The interpretation [of the Rabbis] on it is as follows: 14:10. “And Aaron’s sons shall cause it to ascend. And the priest shall cause it to ascend. And the priest shall cause them to ascend. Why are all these verses mentioned? And Aaron’s sons shall cause it to ascend — only if the offering is acceptable, but not if it has become disqualified. And the priest shall cause it to ascend — [this teaches] that he should not mix the fats of one offering with those of another [even though they are both of the flock]. And the priest shall cause them to ascend — [this teaches] that he should burn them all at one time.”

CHELBO’ (THE FAT THEREOF) ‘HA’ALYAH TH’MIMAH’ (THE FAT TAIL ENTIRE). The term cheilev (fat) in the Sacred Language indicates that part of the fat which is separate from the meat and not joined to it. Shuman, on the other hand, is that fat which is intertwined with the meat and cannot be separated from it, something like that which Scripture states: ‘Vayishman Yeshurun’ (But Jeshurun waxed fat); so they did eat, and were filled ‘vayashminu’ (and became fat); ‘hashmein’ (make fat) the heart of this people; and my flesh is lean ‘mishamen’ (and hath no fatness); and it shall be rich ‘v’shamein’ (and fat); my soul is satisfied as with marrow ‘vadeshen’ (and fatness),, but deshen. We must assume then that Ramban considered them equivalent terms. This is strengthened by an examination of the Hebrew wording of the verse: ‘k’mo cheilev vadeshen tisba nafshi.’ Now deshen is thus in parallelism to cheilev; hence deshen must here be understood as shuman, as explained above. and similarly in all places. But cheilev is the fat which is separate from the meat and covered by a membrane, and is easily peeled off. The Hebrew language never interchanges these terms [cheilev and shuman] in any place. Thus we say, basar shamen (fat meat), but not basar cheilev [since cheilev, as explained, is the fat which is separate and distinguished from the meat]. Similarly in languages of other nations these terms are separate. The term cheilev is sometimes used metaphorically, as is written, when ye set apart ‘chelbo’ (the best thereof) from it, since the good part of the produce which is taken up [to be given to the priest], Scripture figuratively calls cheilev, just as the cheilev is set apart in the offerings. ‘Cheilev kilyoth’ (the kidney-fat) of wheat — Scripture here compares wheat to the kidneys and the fat therein, just as it states, and of the blood of the grape thou drankest foaming wine, although wine is not blood [hence we must conclude that Scripture only uses these terms figuratively]. And ye shall eat the ‘cheilev’ (fat) of the land means that they shall eat the best of the bullocks, sheep, and goats and all animals. Such is the usage of this figure of speech. Now the tail does not contain any cheilev at all, has a figurative meaning, Ramban now proceeds to his main theme here: that the tail of the animal contains no cheilev [which is the term for the fat which is forbidden to be eaten] at all, but rather it contains shuman [which is the fatty substance contained in the meat which cannot be separated from it, and is permitted to be eaten]. At the end of this lengthy discussion it will be made clear that Ramban’s intention is to refute a major contention of the Karaites, who prohibited the eating of the fat of the tail, while the true tradition of the Rabbis permits it to be eaten. See further, Note 277. but rather has in it shuman (fat) which is not separate from the meat thereof, just as there is in every good piece, the thigh and the shoulder. This is confirmed by doctors who in their studies of nature have established the fact that cheilev [fat which is separate from the meat], is never to be found [in the animal] near the hide, nor in a limb which is always in movement [such as the tail]. The doctors have further said that the nature of shuman found in the ribs, sides and tail, which is not separate from the meat, is warm and moist, whilst that fat which can be separated from the meat, such as that which is upon the kidneys, is cold and moist, thick and coarse; it is difficult for the stomach to digest it fully, and it easily spoils; it also increases the white fluid increases the white fluid beyond the proper proportion, it affects the health of the person adversely. and constipates. If so, the verse stating, Eat ye not any ‘cheilev’ (fat) nor blood, does not include the shuman (fat) which is upon the tail, for that is not cheilev by name or nature. If all fat were to come under the term cheilev, then all fat in an animal — on the shoulders and sides — would not be allowed to be eaten! For Scripture does not say: “All fat which is offered unto G-d ye shall not eat” [so that you would include in this prohibition the fat of the tail, since it is offered as a fire-offering on the altar]. Rather, He states that “the cheilev (fat) of all cattle which are brought as offerings upon the altar, must not be eaten.” (further, 7:25). Now the verse does not state “For whosoever eateth the fat which men present as an offering …” [so that you could argue, since the tail and the fat thereon are offered upon the altar, therefore they may not be eaten]. Rather, the verse states, For whosoever eateth the fat ‘of the beast’ of which men present an offering …, thus teaching that the cheilev of any animal which can be brought as an offering — whether it is actually brought as a hallowed offering or is eaten as common food — is forbidden to be eaten. Thus the verse establishes that cheilev of the ox, sheep, and goat [from which offerings can be brought] is forbidden to be eaten, whether it be an offering or common food. See further, Note 277. It is indeed impossible to say that He prohibited all these fats of the animal which are offered on the altar, for if so the kidneys and the lobe above the liver would be forbidden to be eaten [since they are offered on the altar]! Rather, whatever fat comes under the term cheilev [as explained above], is forbidden to be eaten, even though it is not brought on the altar, such as the fat on the spleen; and that which is not called cheilev may be eaten even though it is offered on the altar, such as the [fat of the] kidneys and the lobe above the liver, and similarly also that of the tail [which even though it is brought on the altar, may be eaten because it is shuman and not cheilev]. Similarly, Scripture states in connection with the command of the installation of the priests, And thou shalt take of the ram ‘ha’cheilev’ (the fat) and the tail;. and at the performance thereof it is written, And he took the fat, and the tail, for the tail is not cheilev. Now this verse [before us] which states ‘chelbo ha’alyah th’mimah’, means that he shall offer up [from the peace-offerings] the fat thereof, together with the entire fat tail, meaning that when he removes the “entire fat tail” until the rump-bone, he must take with it much fat that is attached to it on the inside. Thus the Rabbis have said in Torath Kohanim: 19:2. “This tells us that he must also take the fat near the tail, which is the fat between the sinews [in the loins].” In my opinion the purport of this verse is also like that of the other verse: And he shall offer of it all ‘chelbo’ (the fat thereof): ‘ha’alyah’ (the fat tail), and the fat that covereth the inwards. So here likewise He says, And he shall offer of the sacrifice of peace-offerings all the fat thereof. In these two verses [just quoted], He first makes a general statement, that [the priest] should offer all the fat thereof, and then He mentions in detail all the parts that he should offer [namely, the fat tail entire … and the fat that covereth the inwards … and the two kidneys, and the fat upon them … and the lobe above the liver …]. Now not everything that is mentioned here is cheilev [fat forbidden to be eaten], for the two kidneys [themselves] and the lobe above the liver are not at all included in the term cheilev. Thus He stated in the section of Bayom Ha’shemini:. And ‘ha’cheilev’ (the fat), and the kidneys, and the lobe of the liver, hence we may also say that the alyah mentioned is not cheilev. mentioning the cheilev by itself and then the other inwards by themselves, even as He said, And thou shalt take of the ram ‘ha’cheilev’ and the tail.. If so, the reason why the tail is offered [on the altar] is not because it is included here in Verse 9] in the term chelbo. Rather, He states here that the priest should burn [on the altar] from the peace-offerings all the fat thereof, and then He proceeds to explain all the inwards [which he should offer], some being cheilev and some not. The meaning of the verse in the case of the sin-offering stating, And all the fat thereof he shall take away, as ‘cheilev’ (the fat) is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace-offerings,, 4:31. is not to refer only to that which is strictly speaking cheilev, for if that were so, the kidneys and the lobe on the liver [which are not cheilev] would not be offered up in the case of the sin-offering. Rather, the intention of the verse is that he is to take away the cheilev together with all the things that are removed from the peace-offerings. Similarly, [the verse stating in the case of the she-lamb brought as a sin-offering], And all the fat thereof shall he take away, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace-offerings,, Verse 35. means that he is to take away as he had done in the case of the peace-offerings, meaning everything that he had taken away there, including the tail with its fat. Similarly, And they put the ‘chalavim’ (fats) upon the breasts, and he caused the fats to ascend in fumes, 9:20. means [the cheilev] together with all that is removed from them. I have had to discuss this point at length in order to shut up the mouths of the Sadducees,. See also Maimonides who writes: “the heretics who here in the Orient are called Karaites” (“The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 160). may their name be erased [from memory], for in matters of Torah it has been said, Answer a fool according to his folly, … “] is to a point the Sages have made regarding an obvious contradiction in the Book of Proverbs. In Verse 4 there it states, Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him, and immediately in the following verse it states, Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. The Sages explained that there is no contradiction: “in matters of Torah answer him, but in other matters do not” (Shabbath 30b). It is to this principle that Ramban alludes in writing, “for in matters of Torah it has been said … ” and the Rabbis have also said, “Be diligent in learning Torah, in order to be able to answer the unbeliever.” The Gaon Rav Saadia explained it to them, by saying that chelbo ha’alyah is missing a connective vav, which would make it: chelbo veha’alyah — (its fat “and” the tail) [thus clearly meaning that the tail is not included in the cheilev]. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra refuted Rav Saadia Gaon by saying [that “from a grammatical point of view this could not be possible, for if so] it should have said chelbo elyato comes with the pronominal suffix [meaning “its fat”], the word ha’alyah (the tail) should likewise have come in that form: elyato (“its tail”). or hacheilev ha’alyah.” (according to Saadia Gaon’s interpretation) comes without the pronominal suffix, the word chelbo should also not have it, making it — hacheilev v’ha’alyah. Thus Ibn Ezra is saying that the Karaite interpretation still stands, for since it is written chelbo ha’alyah it would appear that ha’alyah is in apposition to chelbo, thus explaining: “What is chelbo? Ha’alyah.” — Ramban, however, will refute this argument of Ibn Ezra, bringing proof from another verse in Scripture which mentions two nouns together, and yet one is written with a pronominal suffix and the other without. Thus Saadia Gaon’s refutation of the Karaite interpretation is valid, and the tradition that the tail is not cheilev is confirmed. See, however, further in text where Ramban comments on the Gaon’s interpretation. But Ibn Ezra’s refutation is not valid, for we find [Scripture stating], And all Israel and their elders, and officers, and their judges! (and their elders) comes with a pronominal suffix, and v’shotrim (and officers) does not. In our case too it is therefore correct to say, as Saadia Gaon does, that chelbo ha’alyah means chelbo v’ha’alyah, and the two nouns do not stand in apposition to each other, thus proving that the alyah is not cheilev. I will yet mention a great mistake which Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra made in his arguments with them [i.e., the Karaites], in which he spoke more wrongly than they. of a cattle slaughtered as common food is not forbidden to be eaten (see above Note 266). That opinion is more harmful than what the Karaite have said. For in abstaining from eating the fat of the tail no infringement of the Torah is incurred, whilst in eating of the cheilev of cattle slaughtered as common food, one violates a prohibition of the Torah! However, the Gaon’s interpretation is not correct,, making the word ha’alyah — v’ha’alyah (“and” the tail). Such an interpretation is not sufficiently convincing to base thereon the permission to eat the tail. and surely it is not an argument sufficiently persuasive to permit the eating [of the tail because of it]. But the interpretation which our Rabbis advanced on the verse, Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat, that He prohibited only [that kind of fat like] the fat of the ox which is common to all [i.e., the sheep and the goat, thus excepting the fat of the tail of the sheep, which is not found in the ox], that is a proper interpretation [from which we may clearly know that the tail is permitted to be eaten]! But in order not to give contestants an occasion to dispute [the tradition of the Rabbis], we have had to bring the [other] proofs and arguments which we have written.

AND IF HIS OFFERING BE A GOAT. He mentions here the species, thus meaning, “if of the species of goats is his offering,” [and thus includes male and female]. This is like the opinion of Onkelos who translated: “and if of the ‘bnei’ (species of) the goats is his offering.” Similarly, that which He said in connection with the burnt-offering, whether of the sheep, or of the goats, also means of their species [for since the male of the goats is called tayish, the verse there which speaks of a burnt-offering which can be only a male, must perforce mean “the species of the goats,” which automatically includes the males]. In my opinion the Sacred Language is not particular as to the names of animals, for the majority of them have the same name for both male and female, such as camel, ass, rock-badger, hare, and swine, and among the birds the young pigeon and the turtle-dove. Even among the species which do have different names for the male and female — such as shor and parah (ox and cow), kesev, kisbah (he-lamb, ewe-lamb), tayish and eiz (he-goat and she-goat) — Scripture is not particular, and will sometimes say seh and shor of the female, similar to that which is written, ‘V’shor o seh’ [literally: “and ox or lamb] ye shall not kill it and its young both in one day, which applies only to the dam and the lamb [it being permissible to slaughter the male parent and its young in one day], in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who says that [in animals] one does not take into consideration the seed of the male parent. Similarly, of ‘ha’izim’ (the goats) for a burnt-offering, he shall offer it a male without blemish, means of the t’yashim (the he-goats). And if his offering be an ‘eiz’ (a goat) means a male or female [since a peace-offering, which is the subject of this verse, can be brought either from the male or the femals]. So also, And if his means suffice not for a ‘seh’ (lamb) means a ewe-lamb or a she-goat [as is expressly stated there in the preceding verse]., Verse 6. The section there deals with the offering of higher or lower value, Scripture first stating that where the offender can afford it he should bring as a sin-offering a ewe-lamb or a she-goat. Then follows the verse: And if his means suffice not for a ‘seh’ (lamb). The word seh in this case must perforce mean a ewe-lamb or she-goat. Thus it is proven that Scripture uses the term seh also for the female.