CHELEV - SUET: WHAT IS IT, AND WHY WAS IT FORBIDDEN?

(22) You shall take from the ram the fat parts—the broad tail, the fat that covers the entrails, the protuberance on the liver, the two kidneys with the fat on them—and the right thigh; for this is a ram of ordination.

(1) The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: (2) Speak to the Israelite people thus: When a person unwittingly incurs guilt in regard to any of the LORD’s commandments about things not to be done, and does one of them— (3) If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt, so that blame falls upon the people, he shall offer for the sin of which he is guilty a bull of the herd without blemish as a sin offering to the LORD. (4) He shall bring the bull to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, before the Lord, and lay his hand upon the head of the bull. The bull shall be slaughtered before the LORD, (5) and the anointed priest shall take some of the bull’s blood and bring it into the Tent of Meeting. (6) The priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, in front of the curtain of the Shrine. (7) The priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of aromatic incense, which is in the Tent of Meeting, before the LORD; and all the rest of the bull’s blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. (8) He shall remove all the fat from the bull of sin offering: the fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is about the entrails; (9) the two kidneys and the fat that is on them, that is at the loins; and the protuberance on the liver, which he shall remove with the kidneys— (10) just as it is removed from the ox of the sacrifice of well-being. The priest shall turn them into smoke on the altar of burnt offering. (11) But the hide of the bull, and all its flesh, as well as its head and legs, its entrails and its dung— (12) all the rest of the bull—he shall carry to a clean place outside the camp, to the ash heap, and burn it up in a wood fire; it shall be burned on the ash heap.

(13) If it is the whole community of Israel that has erred and the matter escapes the notice of the congregation, so that they do any of the things which by the LORD’s commandments ought not to be done, and they realize their guilt— (14) when the sin through which they incurred guilt becomes known, the congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin offering, and bring it before the Tent of Meeting. (15) The elders of the community shall lay their hands upon the head of the bull before the LORD, and the bull shall be slaughtered before the LORD. (16) The anointed priest shall bring some of the blood of the bull into the Tent of Meeting, (17) and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle of it seven times before the LORD, in front of the curtain. (18) Some of the blood he shall put on the horns of the altar which is before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting, and all the rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. (19) He shall remove all its fat from it and turn it into smoke on the altar. (20) He shall do with this bull just as is done with the [priest’s] bull of sin offering; he shall do the same with it. Thus the priest shall make expiation for them, and they shall be forgiven. (21) He shall carry the bull outside the camp and burn it as he burned the first bull; it is the sin offering of the congregation. (22) In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of the LORD his God ought not to be done, and he realizes his guilt— (23) or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge—he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish. (24) He shall lay his hand upon the goat’s head, and it shall be slaughtered at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered before the LORD; it is a sin offering. (25) The priest shall take with his finger some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering; and the rest of its blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering. (26) All its fat he shall turn into smoke on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of well-being. Thus the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for his sin, and he shall be forgiven. (27) If any person from among the populace unwittingly incurs guilt by doing any of the things which by the LORD’s commandments ought not to be done, and he realizes his guilt— (28) or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge—he shall bring a female goat without blemish as his offering for the sin of which he is guilty. (29) He shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and the sin offering shall be slaughtered at the place of the burnt offering. (30) The priest shall take with his finger some of its blood and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering; and all the rest of its blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar. (31) He shall remove all its fat, just as the fat is removed from the sacrifice of well-being; and the priest shall turn it into smoke on the altar, for a pleasing odor to the LORD. Thus the priest shall make expiation for him, and he shall be forgiven.

(32) If the offering he brings as a sin offering is a sheep, he shall bring a female without blemish. (33) He shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and it shall be slaughtered as a sin offering at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered. (34) The priest shall take with his finger some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and all the rest of its blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar. (35) And all its fat he shall remove just as the fat of the sheep of the sacrifice of well-being is removed; and this the priest shall turn into smoke on the altar, over the LORD’s offering by fire. Thus the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for the sin of which he is guilty, and he shall be forgiven.

(1) This is the ritual of the guilt offering: it is most holy. (2) The guilt offering shall be slaughtered at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered, and the blood shall be dashed on all sides of the altar. (3) All its fat shall be offered: the broad tail; the fat that covers the entrails; (4) the two kidneys and the fat that is on them at the loins; and the protuberance on the liver, which shall be removed with the kidneys. (5) The priest shall turn them into smoke on the altar as an offering by fire to the LORD; it is a guilt offering. (6) Only the males in the priestly line may eat of it; it shall be eaten in the sacred precinct: it is most holy. (7) The guilt offering is like the sin offering. The same rule applies to both: it shall belong to the priest who makes expiation thereby. (8) So, too, the priest who offers a man’s burnt offering shall keep the skin of the burnt offering that he offered. (9) Further, any meal offering that is baked in an oven, and any that is prepared in a pan or on a griddle, shall belong to the priest who offers it. (10) But every other meal offering, with oil mixed in or dry, shall go to the sons of Aaron all alike.

(11) This is the ritual of the sacrifice of well-being that one may offer to the LORD: (12) If he offers it for thanksgiving, he shall offer together with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes with oil mixed in, unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes of choice flour with oil mixed in, well soaked. (13) This offering, with cakes of leavened bread added, he shall offer along with his thanksgiving sacrifice of well-being. (14) Out of this he shall offer one of each kind as a gift to the LORD; it shall go to the priest who dashes the blood of the offering of well-being. (15) And the flesh of his thanksgiving sacrifice of well-being shall be eaten on the day that it is offered; none of it shall be set aside until morning. (16) If, however, the sacrifice he offers is a votive or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice, and what is left of it shall be eaten on the morrow. (17) What is then left of the flesh of the sacrifice shall be consumed in fire on the third day. (18) If any of the flesh of his sacrifice of well-being is eaten on the third day, it shall not be acceptable; it shall not count for him who offered it. It is an offensive thing, and the person who eats of it shall bear his guilt. (19) Flesh that touches anything unclean shall not be eaten; it shall be consumed in fire. As for other flesh, only he who is clean may eat such flesh. (20) But the person who, in a state of uncleanness, eats flesh from the LORD’s sacrifices of well-being, that person shall be cut off from his kin. (21) When a person touches anything unclean, be it human uncleanness or an unclean animal or any unclean creature, and eats flesh from the LORD’s sacrifices of well-being, that person shall be cut off from his kin.

(22) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: (23) Speak to the Israelite people thus: You shall eat no fat of ox or sheep or goat. (24) Fat from animals that died or were torn by beasts may be put to any use, but you must not eat it. (25) If anyone eats the fat of animals from which offerings by fire may be made to the LORD, the person who eats it shall be cut off from his kin. (26) And you must not consume any blood, either of bird or of animal, in any of your settlements. (27) Anyone who eats blood shall be cut off from his kin. (28) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: (29) Speak to the Israelite people thus: The offering to the LORD from a sacrifice of well-being must be presented by him who offers his sacrifice of well-being to the LORD: (30) his own hands shall present the LORD’s offerings by fire. He shall present the fat with the breast, the breast to be elevated as an elevation offering before the LORD; (31) the priest shall turn the fat into smoke on the altar, and the breast shall go to Aaron and his sons. (32) And the right thigh from your sacrifices of well-being you shall present to the priest as a gift; (33) he from among Aaron’s sons who offers the blood and the fat of the offering of well-being shall get the right thigh as his portion. (34) For I have taken the breast of elevation offering and the thigh of gift offering from the Israelites, from their sacrifices of well-being, and given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as their due from the Israelites for all time. (35) Those shall be the perquisites of Aaron and the perquisites of his sons from the LORD’s offerings by fire, once they have been inducted to serve the LORD as priests; (36) these the LORD commanded to be given them, once they had been anointed, as a due from the Israelites for all time throughout the ages. (37) Such are the rituals of the burnt offering, the meal offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the offering of ordination, and the sacrifice of well-being, (38) with which the LORD charged Moses on Mount Sinai, when He commanded that the Israelites present their offerings to the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai.

(1) THE precepts of the thirteenth class are those which we have enumerated in the "Laws concerning forbidden food" (Hilkot maakalot asurot), "Laws concerning killing animals for food" (Hilkot sheḥitah), and "Laws concerning vows and Nazaritism" (Hilkot nedarim u-nezirot). We have fully and very explicitly discussed the object of this class in this treatise, and in our Commentary on the Sayings of the Fathers. We will here add a few remarks in reviewing the single commandments which are mentioned there.

(2) I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. 11:7), and fat (ibid. 7:23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks. A saying of our Sages declares: "The mouth of a swine is as dirty as dung itself" (B. T. Ber. 25a).

(3) The fat of the intestines makes us full, interrupts our digestion, and produces cold and thick blood; it is more fit for fuel [than for human food].

(4) Blood (Lev. 17:12), and nebelah, i.e., the flesh of an animal that died of itself (Deut. 14:21), are indigestible, and injurious as food; Trefah, an animal in a diseased state (Exod. 22:30), is on the way of becoming a nebelah.

(5) The characteristics given in the Law (Lev. xi., and Deut. xiv.) of the permitted animals, viz., chewing the cud and divided hoofs for cattle, and fins and scales for fish, are in themselves neither the cause of the permission when they are present, nor of the prohibition when they are absent; but merely signs by which the recommended species of animals can be discerned from those that are forbidden.

(6) The reason why the sinew that shrank is prohibited is stated in the Law (Gen. 32:33).

(7) It is prohibited to cut off a limb of a living animal and eat it, because such act would produce cruelty, and develop it: besides, the heathen kings used to do it: it was also a kind of idolatrous worship to cut off a certain limb of a living animal and to eat it.

(8) Meat boiled in milk is undoubtedly gross food, and makes overfull; but I think that most probably it is also prohibited because it is somehow connected with idolatry, forming perhaps part of the service, or being used on some festival of the heathen. I find a support for this view in the circumstance that the Law mentions the prohibition twice after the commandment given concerning the festivals "Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God" (Exod. 23:17, and 34:73), as if to say, "When you come before me on your festivals, do not seethe your food in the manner as the heathen used to do." This I consider as the best reason for the prohibition: but as far as I have seen the books on Sabean rites, nothing is mentioned of this custom.

(9) The commandment concerning the killing of animals is necessary, because the natural food of man consists of vegetables and of the flesh of animals: the best meat is that of animals permitted to be used as food. No doctor has any doubts about this. Since, therefore, the desire of procuring good food necessitates the slaying of animals, the Law enjoins that the death of the animal should be the easiest. It is not allowed to torment the animal by cutting the throat in a clumsy manner, by poleaxing, or by cutting off a limb whilst the animal is alive.

(10) It is also prohibited to kill an animal with its young on the same day (Lev. 22:28), in order that people should be restrained and prevented from killing the two together in such a manner that the young is slain in the sight of the mother; for the pain of the animals under such circumstances is very great. There is no difference in this case between the pain of man and the pain of other living beings, since the love and tenderness of the mother for her young ones is not produced by reasoning, but by imagination, and this faculty exists not only in man but in most living beings. This law applies only to ox and lamb, because of the domestic animals used as food these alone are permitted to us, and in these cases the mother recognises her young.

(11) The same reason applies to the law which enjoins that we should let the mother fly away when we take the young. The eggs over which the bird sits, and the young that are in need of their mother, are generally unfit for food, and when the mother is sent away she does not see the taking of her young ones, and does not feel any pain. In most cases, however, this commandment will cause man to leave the whole nest untouched, because [the young or the eggs], which he is allowed to take, are, as a rule, unfit for food. If the Law provides that such grief should not be caused to cattle or birds, how much more careful must we be that we should not cause grief to our fellowmen. When in the Talmud (Ber. p. 33b) those are blamed who use in their prayer the phrase, "Thy mercy extendeth to young birds," it is the expression of the one of the two opinions mentioned by us, namely, that the precepts of the Law have no other reason but the Divine will. We follow the other opinion.

(12) The reason why we cover the blood when we kill animals, and why we do it only when we kill clean beasts and clean birds, has already been explained by us (supra, chap. xlvi., p. 362).

(13) In addition to the things prohibited by the Law, we are also commanded to observe the prohibitions enjoined by our own vows (Num. xxx.). If we say, This bread or this meat is forbidden for us, we are not allowed to partake of that food. The object of that precept is to train us in temperance, that we should be able to control our appetites for eating and drinking. Our Sages say accordingly, "Vows are a fence for abstinence." As women are easily provoked to anger, owing to their greater excitability and the weakness of their mind, their oaths, if entirely under their own control, would cause great grief, quarrel, and disorder in the family; one kind of food would be allowed for the husband, and forbidden for the wife; another kind forbidden for the daughter, and allowed for the mother. Therefore the Law gives the father of the family control over the vows of those dependent on him. A woman that is independent, and not under the authority of a chief of the family, is, as regards vows, subject to the same laws as men; I mean a woman that has no husband, or that has no father, or that is of age, i.e., twelve years and six months.

(14) The object of Nazaritism (Num. vi.) is obvious. It keeps away from wine that has ruined people in ardent and modern times. "Many strong men have been slain by it" (Prov. 27:26). "But they also have erred through wine. . . . the priest and the prophet" (Isa. 28:7). In the law about the Nazarite we notice even the prohibition, "he shall eat nothing that is made of the vine tree" (Num. 6:4), as an additional precaution, implying the lesson that man must take of wine only as much as is absolutely necessary. For he who abstains from drinking it is called "holy"; his sanctity is made equal to that of the high-priest, in not being allowed to defile himself even to his father, to his mother, and the like. This honour is given him because he abstains from wine.

(1) 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);²⁵³Deuteronomy 32:15. so they did eat, and were filled ‘vayashminu’ (and became fat);²⁵⁴Nehemiah 9:25. ‘hashmein’ (make fat) the heart of this people;²⁵⁵Isaiah 6:10. and my flesh is lean ‘mishamen’ (and hath no fatness);²⁵⁶Psalms 109:24. and it shall be rich ‘v’shamein’ (and fat);²⁵⁷Isaiah 30:23. my soul is satisfied as with marrow ‘vadeshen’ (and fatness),²⁵⁸Psalms 63:6. It should be noted that this verse does not contain the root shuman, 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,²⁵⁹Numbers 18:30. 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 wheat²⁶⁰Deuteronomy 32:14. — 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,²⁶⁰Deuteronomy 32:14. 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 land²⁶¹Genesis 45:18. 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,²⁶²Having established the premise that the term cheilev 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.²⁶³Ezekiel 24:4. 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 fluid²⁶⁴The ancients believed that a person’s physical and mental constitution is determined by the proper balance of the four bodily fluids which exist in every man. These are “the four humors” — the red, the white, the green, and the black — which vary constantly in man and determine his state of health and disposition at any given moment. Since the eating of cheilev 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,²⁶⁵Further, Verse 17. 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.”²⁶⁶Ramban’s intent is to refer to the following verse: For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men present an offering unto the Eternal, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people (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]!²⁶⁷Verses: 4 and 10, etc. And yet even the Karaites do not forbid these foods! 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;²⁶⁸Exodus 29:22. This shows that the fat of the tail is not called cheilev. and at the performance thereof it is written, And he took the fat, and the tail,²⁶⁹Further, 8:25. 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:²⁷⁰Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 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.²⁷¹Further, 7:3. 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:²⁷²“On the Eighth Day” of Initiation. It is the third section in this Book of Vayikra, known as Shemini. And ‘ha’cheilev’ (the fat), and the kidneys, and the lobe of the liver,²⁷³Further, 9:10. The use of the separate terms there thus clearly proves that not everything mentioned is cheilev; 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.²⁶⁸Exodus 29:22. This shows that the fat of the tail is not called cheilev. 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,²⁷⁴Ibid., 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,²⁷⁵Ibid., 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 fumes²⁷⁶Ibid., 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,²⁷⁷So also in Ibn Ezra here. The “Sadducees,” strictly speaking, were a sect during the Second Temple that denied the authority of the oral tradition. The name Sadducee, however, became a synonym for all those who denied Talmudic authority. The reference here is definitely to the Karaites — a sect which appeared in the Gaonic period (760 Common Era) which rejected the authority of the Oral Law, and based itself on individual interpretation of the Torah. A major contention of theirs (based upon the present verse) was that the tail is forbidden to be eaten since it is here called cheilev. 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,²⁷⁸Proverbs 26:5. Ramban’s allusion [in his words “for in matters of Torah it has been said, Answer … “] 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,²⁷⁹Aboth 2:14. “Be diligent in learning Torah, in order to²⁸⁰“In order to.” In our standards text of the Mishnah: “and know what to.” be able to answer the unbeliever.”
The Gaon Rav Saadia²⁸¹See in Exodus, Vol. II, p. 99, Note 230. explained it to them,²⁸²I.e., the Karaites. “Saadia persisted in fighting Karaism with literary weapons; and throughout his checkered life he continued to combat its apostles with unrelenting vigor, so that he became the most dreaded and most hated opponent of the [Karaite] sect down to our own times” (H. Malter, “Saadia Gaon,” p. 262). 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 elyato²⁸³In other words, since chelbo 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.”²⁸⁴Or since v’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!²⁸⁵Joshua 8:33. Here u’zkeinav (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 mention²⁸⁶Further, 7:25. 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.²⁸⁷Ramban’s intent is to Ibn Ezra’s statement there that cheilev 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,²⁸⁸In other words, Ibn Ezra’s argument against the Gaon’s interpretation is surely not valid, as explained above. Yet the Gaon’s interpretation is also not persuasive, since his explanation is dependent upon a missing connective vav, 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 advanced²⁸⁹Chullin 117a. on the verse, Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat,²⁹⁰Further, 7:23. 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.