## Ramban on Leviticus Chapter 3

###### Ramban on Leviticus 3:1:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 3:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/3:1:1)

**וְאִם זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים קָרְבָּנוֹ וְגוֹ' אִם זָכָר אִם נְקֵבָה** הַטַּעַם בָּעוֹלָה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה זָכָר וּבַשְּׁלָמִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ אִם זָכָר אִם נְקֵבָה וּבַחַטָּאת שֶׁתִּהְיֶה נְקֵבָה, דָּבָר בָּרוּר הוּא, כִּי הָעוֹלָה כִּשְׁמָהּ, וְהַשְּׁלָמִים מִלְּשׁוֹן "וְכָל חֶפְצִי יַשְׁלִם" (ישעיהו מד כח), "אֲבָנִים שְׁלֵמוֹת" (דברים כז ו), וְהַחַטָּאת לְכַפֵּר פָּנָיו בַּמִּנְחָה הַהוֹלֶכֶת לְפָנָיו, וּכְבָר כָּתַבְתִּי זֶה (בראשית מו א), וְהָאָשָׁם זָכָר בַּעֲבוּר כִּי הַחַטָּאת בְּחַיָּבֵי כְּרֵתוֹת, שֶׁתָּשׁוּב הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר נְתָנָהּ, וְהָאָשָׁם לֹא יָבֹא עַל חִיּוּב כָּרֵת, וּכְאִלּוּ הוּא לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ כְּעוֹלָה, וּשְׂעִיר הַנָּשִׂיא בַּעֲבוּר כִּי הוּא הַמּוֹלֵךְ אֲשֶׁר לוֹ הַמִּשְׁפָּט וְהַלּוֹחֵם מִלְחֲמוֹת הַשֵּׁם וְעַל חַרְבּוֹ יִחְיֶה, כְּדֶרֶךְ שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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,²³⁵ whereas in the case of the peace-offering it can be male or female, and the sin-offering must only be female,²³⁶ 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”);²³⁷ ‘*avanim sh’leimoth*’ (whole stones).²³⁸ The sin-offering is in order to appease Him *with the present that goeth before*²³⁹ Him. I have already written on this matter.²⁴⁰, 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,²⁴¹ 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,*²⁴² 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.²⁴³ The sin-offering of the prince is a he-goat,²⁴⁴ because the prince is the sovereign unto whom judgment [rightfully] belongs,²⁴⁵ and he fights the battles of G-d and lives by his sword;²⁴⁶ therefore his offering is the same as the he-goat brought in case of idol-worship [by the congregation].²⁴⁷

footnotes:
²³⁵ Above, Chapter 1, Verses 3 and 10.
²³⁶ Further, 4:28. This applies only to the sin-offering of an ordinary individual. See further on in the text for the sin-offering of the prince (4:23).
²³⁷ Isaiah 44:28.
²³⁸ Deuteronomy 27:6. Since the peace-offering is brought in order to bring peace into the world, it performs the function of harmonizing all attributes, such as justice and mercy. Hence it may be brought from the male or female (Ricanti). See my Hebrew commentary, p. 19; also Note 240 further.
²³⁹ Genesis 32:21.
²⁴⁰ Ibid.
²⁴¹ Further, Chapter 5, Verses 15 and 25.
²⁴² Ecclesiastes 12:7.
²⁴³ Hence just like the burnt-offering is a male [for the reason explained above], so is the guilt-offering.
²⁴⁴ Further, 4:23; although the sin-offering of a common person is a female, as explained above.
²⁴⁵ See Ezekiel 21:32.
²⁴⁶ See Genesis 27:40.
²⁴⁷ Numbers 15:24.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 3:5:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 3:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/3:5:1)

**וְהִקְטִירוּ אֹתוֹ בְנֵי אַהֲרֹן** כִּנּוּי לָאִשֶּׁה הַנִּזְכָּר (ויקרא ג':ג') "וְהִקְרִיב מִזֶּבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים אִשֶּׁה לַה'", וְהוּא שָׁוֶה עִם מַה שֶׁאָמַר לְמַטָּה (ויקרא ג':ט"ז) "וְהִקְטִירָם" כִּי שָׁם יִרְמֹז לְכָל הָאֵמוּרִין. וּמִדְרָשׁוֹ (תו"כ פרשה יד י) "וְהִקְטִירוּ אוֹתוֹ" (כאן) "וְהִקְטִירוֹ" (ויקרא ג':י"א) "וְהִקְטִירָם" (ויקרא ג':ט"ז), מַה ת"ל, "וְהִקְטִירוּ אוֹתוֹ" הַכָּשֵׁר וְלֹא הַפָּסוּל, "וְהִקְטִירוּ" שֶׁלֹּא יְעָרֵב חֲלָבִים בַּחֲלָבִים, "וְהִקְטִירָם" כֻּלָּם כְּאַחַת:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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*,²⁴⁸ 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:²⁴⁹ 14:10. “*And Aaron’s sons shall cause it to ascend*.²⁵⁰ *And the priest shall cause it to ascend*.²⁵¹ *And the priest shall cause them to ascend*.²⁵² Why are all these verses mentioned? *And Aaron’s sons shall cause it to ascend*²⁵⁰ — only if the offering is acceptable, but not if it has become disqualified. *And the priest shall cause it to ascend*²⁵¹ — [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.”

footnotes:
²⁴⁸ Further, Verse 16.
²⁴⁹ Torath Kohanim, Vayikra
²⁵⁰ Here in Verse 5 before us, in the case of the peace-offering brought from the herd.
²⁵¹ Further, Verse 11 — in the case of the peace-offering of the flock.
²⁵² Further, Verse 16 — in the case of the peace-offering of the goats.
²⁵⁰ Here in Verse 5 before us, in the case of the peace-offering brought from the herd.
²⁵¹ Further, Verse 11 — in the case of the peace-offering of the flock.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 3:9:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 3:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/3:9:1)

**חֶלְבּוֹ הָאַלְיָה תְמִימָה** שֵׁם חֵלֶב בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ - הַשֻּׁמָּן הַנִּפְרָד שֶׁאֵינוֹ עִם הַבָּשָׂר כְּדָבָר אֶחָד, כִּי הַשֻּׁמָּן הַמִּתְעָרֵב בַּבָּשָׂר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִפְרָד מִמֶּנּוּ יִקָּרֵא שֻׁמָּן, כְּעִנְיָן שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב "וַיִּשְׁמַן יְשֻׁרוּן" (דברים לב טו), "וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׂבְּעוּ וַיַּשְׁמִינוּ" (נחמיה ט כה), "הַשְׁמֵן לֵב הָעָם הַזֶּה" (ישעיהו ו י), "וּבְשָׂרִי כָּחַשׁ מִשָּׁמֶן" (תהלים קט כד), "וְהָיָה דָּשֵׁן וְשָׁמֵן" (ישעיהו ל כג), "כְּמוֹ חֵלֶב וָדֶשֶׁן תִּשְׂבַּע נַפְשִׁי" (תהלים סג ו), וְכֵן בְּכָל מָקוֹם, וְהַחֵלֶב הוּא הַנִּפְרָד אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו קְרוּם וְנִקְלָף, לֹא יִתְעָרֵב הַלָּשׁוֹן בָּהֶן בְּשׁוּם מָקוֹם, כְּאָמְרֵנוּ "בָּשָׂר שָׁמֵן" לֹא "בְּשַׂר חֵלֶב", וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר לְשׁוֹנוֹת הַגּוֹיִם שְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן חֲלוּקִין. וְיֹאמַר דֶּרֶךְ הַשְׁאָלָה בַּכָּתוּב (במדבר יח ל) "בַּהֲרִימְכֶם אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ", כִּי הַטּוֹב אֲשֶׁר יוּרַם מִן הַתְּבוּאָה יְכַנֶּה אוֹתוֹ בְּחֵלֶב, כַּאֲשֶׁר הַחֵלֶב מוּרָם בַּקָּרְבָּנוֹת, "חֵלֶב כִּלְיוֹת חִטָּה" (דברים לב יד), יְדַמֶּה הַחִטָּה לַכְּלָיוֹת וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר בָּם, כַּאֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר (שם) "וְדַם עֵנָב תִּשְׁתֶּה חָמֶר", וְאֵין הַיַּיִן דָּם, "וְאִכְלוּ אֶת חֵלֶב הָאָרֶץ" (בראשית מה יח), שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ כָּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז וְכָל הַחַיָּה, דֶּרֶךְ מָשָׁל זֶה, וְהִנֵּה אֵין בָּאַלְיָה חֵלֶב כְּלָל, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהּ שֻׁמָּן שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִפְרָד כְּמוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּכָל נֵתַח טוֹב יָרֵךְ וְכָתֵף. וְכֵן יָדְעוּ הָרוֹפְאִים בְּטִבְעֵיהֶם שֶׁאֵין הַחֵלֶב נַעֲשֶׂה לְעוֹלָם סָמוּךְ לָעוֹר, וְלֹא בְּאֵבָר שֶׁיָּנוּעַ תָּמִיד. וְאָמְרוּ כִּי טֶבַע הַשֻּׁמָּן שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִפְרָד מִן הַבָּשָׂר בַּצְּלָעוֹת וּבַצְּדָדִין, וּבָאַלְיָה הוּא חַם וְלַח, וְהַנִּפְרָד מִן הַבָּשָׂר כְּמוֹ אֲשֶׁר עַל הַכְּלָיוֹת קַר וְלַח וְגַס וְעָבֶה, וְקָשֶׁה לְהִתְבַּשֵּׁל בָּאִצְטוֹמְכָה, וּמְמַהֵר לִכְלוֹת, וְיוֹלִיד לֵחָה לְבָנָה וְסוֹתֵם. וְאִם כֵּן הַכָּתוּב שֶׁאָמַר (ויקרא ג':י"ז) "כָּל חֵלֶב וְכָל דָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ" אֵין שֻׁמָּן שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הָאַלְיָה בִּכְלָל, כִּי אֵינֶנּוּ חֵלֶב בִּשְׁמוֹ וּבְטִבְעוֹ, וְאִם הָיָה כָּל שֻׁמָּן חֵלֶב אִם כֵּן יֵאָסֵר כָּל שֻׁמָּן שֶׁבַּבְּהֵמָה בַּכְּתֵפוֹת וּבַצְּדָדִין, כִּי הַכָּתוּב לֹא אָמַר "כָּל חֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה' לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ", אֲבָל אָמַר כִּי כָּל בְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרַב עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ יֵאָסֵר כָּל חֵלֶב שֶׁבָּהּ. וְלֹא יִתָּכֵן שֶׁנֹּאמַר שֶׁאָסַר מַה שֶׁנַּקְרִיב מִן הַבְּהֵמָה, שֶׁאִם כֵּן יִהְיוּ הַכְּלָיוֹת וְהַיּוֹתֶרֶת עַל הַכָּבֵד אֲסוּרִים. אֲבָל כָּל הַנִּקְרָא חֵלֶב נֶאֱסָר אע"פ שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָרֵב לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, כְּגוֹן הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עַל הַטְּחוֹל, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נִקְרָא חֵלֶב מֻתָּר, אעפ"י שֶׁהוּא קָרֵב, כְּגוֹן הַכְּלָיוֹת וְהַיּוֹתֶרֶת מִן הַכָּבֵד, וְכֵן הָאַלְיָה. וְכֵן אָמַר הַכָּתוּב בַּמִּלּוּאִים בַּצִּוּוּי "וְלָקַחְתָּ מִן הָאַיִל הַחֵלֶב וְהָאַלְיָה" (שמות כט כב), וּבַמַּעֲשֶׂה "וַיִּקַּח אֶת הַחֵלֶב וְאֶת הָאַלְיָה" (ויקרא ח':כ"ה), כִּי אֵין הָאַלְיָה חֵלֶב. וְהַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה שֶׁאָמַר "חֶלְבּוֹ הָאַלְיָה תְמִימָה" פֵּרוּשׁוֹ שֶׁיַּקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ חֶלְבּוֹ בְּאַלְיָה תְּמִימָה, כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָסִיר הָאַלְיָה תְּמִימָה עַד הֶעָצֶה, יוּסַר עִמָּהּ חֵלֶב רַב אֲשֶׁר הוּא מְחֻבָּר בָּהּ בַּצַּד הַפְּנִימִי. וְכָךְ אָמְרוּ בְּת"כ (ויקרא יט ב), לְהָבִיא אֶת הַחֵלֶב הַסָּמוּךְ לָאַלְיָה, זֶה הַחֵלֶב שֶׁבֵּין הַפְּקוֹקָלוֹת. וְעַל דַּעְתִּי עוֹד שִׁעוּר הַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה כְּמוֹ הַכָּתוּב הָאַחֵר (ויקרא ז':ג') "וְאֵת כָּל חֶלְבּוֹ יַקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ אֵת הָאַלְיָה", אַף כָּאן יֹאמַר וְהִקְרִיב מִזֶּבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים אִשֶּׁה לַה' כָּל חֶלְבּוֹ, בִּשְׁנֵי הַפְּסוּקִים יִכְלֹל תְּחִלָּה שֶׁיַּקְרִיב כָּל חֶלְבּוֹ, וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן פֵּרֵט וְהִזְכִּיר כָּל מַה שֶׁיַּקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ, וְאֵין כָּל הַנִּפְרָטִים חֵלֶב, כִּי שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיוֹת וְהַיּוֹתֶרֶת עַל הַכָּבֵד אֵינָן בִּכְלַל חֵלֶב כְּלָל. וְכָךְ אָמַר בְּפָרָשַׁת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי (ויקרא ט':י') "וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב וְאֶת הַכְּלָיֹת וְאֶת הַיֹּתֶרֶת מִן הַכָּבֵד", הִזְכִּיר הַחֵלֶב לְבַדּוֹ וּשְׁאָר הַקְּרֵבִים לְבַדָּן, כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמַר (שמות כט כב) "מִן הָאַיִל הַחֵלֶב וְהָאַלְיָה", אִם כֵּן אַף הָאַלְיָה אֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה בִּכְלַל חֶלְבּוֹ, אֲבָל אָמַר שֶׁיַּקְרִיב מִזֶּבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים כָּל חֶלְבּוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ פֵּרֵשׁ כָּל הַקְּרָבַיִם אֲשֶׁר הֵם חֵלֶב וַאֲשֶׁר אֵינָם חֵלֶב. וְהַכָּתוּב שֶׁאָמַר בַּחַטָּאת (ויקרא ד':ל"א) "וְאֶת כָּל חֶלְבָּהּ יָסִיר כַּאֲשֶׁר הוּסַר חֵלֶב מֵעַל זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים" אֵין עִנְיָנוֹ בַּחֵלֶב לְבַדּוֹ, שֶׁאִם כֵּן לֹא יִהְיוּ הַכְּלָיוֹת וְהַיּוֹתֶרֶת עַל הַכָּבֵד קְרֵבִים בַּחַטָּאת, אֲבָל עִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁיָּסִיר הַחֵלֶב עִם כָּל הַמּוּסָרִים עִמּוֹ בְּזֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים, וְכֵן "וְאֶת כָּל חֶלְבָּהּ יָסִיר כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּסַר חֵלֶב הַכֶּשֶׂב מִזֶּבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים" (שם לה), שֶׁיְּסִירֶנּוּ כַּהֲסָרָתוֹ בְּזֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים עִם כָּל הַמּוּסָרִים שָׁם, לְרַבּוֹת הָאַלְיָה בְּחֶלְבָּהּ. וְכֵן "וַיָּשִׂימוּ אֶת הַחֲלָבִים עַל הֶחָזוֹת וַיַּקְטֵר אֶת הַחֲלָבִים הַמִּזְבֵּחָה" (ויקרא ט':כ') עִם כָּל הַמּוּסָרִים עִמָּהֶם. וְהֻצְרַכְתִּי לְהַאֲרִיךְ בָּזֶה לִסְתֹּם פִּיהֶם שֶׁל צַדּוּקִים יִמָּחֶה שְׁמָם, כִּי בְּדִבְרֵי תּוֹרָה נֶאֱמַר "עֲנֵה כְסִיל כְּאִוַּלְתּוֹ" (משלי כו ה), וְאָמְרוּ (אבות ב יט), הֱוֵי שָׁקוּד לִלְמֹד תּוֹרָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּשִׁיב לָאֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס. וְהַגָּאוֹן רַב סְעַדְיָה בָּרַח לָהֶם, שֶׁאָמַר כִּי "חֶלְבּוֹ הָאַלְיָה" יֶחְסַר וָי"ו, "וְהָאַלְיָה". וְר"א הֵשִׁיב (אבן עזרא על ויקרא ז':כ') שֶׁהָיָה רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת "חֶלְבּוֹ אַלְיָתוֹ" אוֹ "הַחֵלֶב הָאַלְיָה", וְאֵינָהּ תְּשׁוּבָה, כִּי מָצִינוּ "וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּזְקֵנָיו וְשֹׁטְרִים וְשֹׁפְטָיו" (יהושע ח לג). וְעוֹד אַזְכִּיר (רמב"ן על ויקרא ז':כ"ה) טָעוּת גָּדוֹל שֶׁטָּעָה ר"א בְּטַעֲנוֹתָיו עִמָּהֶם, הֵרַע לוֹמַר מֵהֶם. אֲבָל פֵּרוּשׁ הַגָּאוֹן אֵינֶנּוּ נָכוֹן, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁאֵינֶנּוּ מֻכְרָח לְהַתִּיר בּוֹ. וְהַמִּדְרָשׁ שֶׁעָשׂוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (חולין קיז) "כָּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז" (ויקרא ז':כ"ג), שֶׁלֹּא אָסַר אֶלָּא חֵלֶב הַשָּׁוֶה בְּכֻלָּם, מִדְרָשׁ הָגוּן הוּא, אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא לִתֵּן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לְבַעַל הַדִּין לַחְלֹק הֻצְרַכְנוּ לִרְאָיוֹת וּטְעָנוֹת שֶׁכָּתַבְנוּ:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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*);²⁵³ *so they did eat, and were filled ‘vayashminu’* (*and became fat*);²⁵⁴ ‘*hashmein*’ (*make fat*) *the heart of this people;*²⁵⁵ *and my flesh is lean ‘mishamen’* (*and hath no fatness*);²⁵⁶ *and it shall be rich ‘v’shamein’* (*and fat*);²⁵⁷ *my soul is satisfied as with marrow ‘vadeshen’* (*and fatness*),²⁵⁸, 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*,²⁵⁹ 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*²⁶⁰ — 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*,²⁶⁰ 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*²⁶¹ 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,²⁶² 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*.²⁶³ 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 fluid²⁶⁴ 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*,²⁶⁵ 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.”²⁶⁶ (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]!²⁶⁷ 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;*²⁶⁸. and at the performance thereof it is written, *And he took the fat, and the tail*,²⁶⁹ 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:²⁷⁰ 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*.²⁷¹ 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. *And ‘ha’cheilev’* (*the fat*), *and the kidneys, and the lobe of the liver*,²⁷³ 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*.²⁶⁸. 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*,²⁷⁴, 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*,²⁷⁵, 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*²⁷⁶, 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,²⁷⁷. 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*,²⁷⁸ … “] 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,²⁷⁹ “Be diligent in learning Torah, in order to²⁸⁰ be able to answer the unbeliever.”
The Gaon Rav Saadia²⁸¹ explained it to them,²⁸² 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*²⁸³ 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*.”²⁸⁴ (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*!²⁸⁵ (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 mention²⁸⁶ 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.²⁸⁷ 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,²⁸⁸, 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 advanced²⁸⁹ on the verse, *Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat*,²⁹⁰ 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.

footnotes:
²⁵³ Deuteronomy 32:15.
²⁵⁴ Nehemiah 9:25.
²⁵⁵ Isaiah 6:10.
²⁵⁶ Psalms 109:24.
²⁵⁷ Isaiah 30:23.
²⁵⁸ Psalms 63:6. It should be noted that this verse does not contain the root shuman
²⁵⁹ Numbers 18:30.
²⁶⁰ Deuteronomy 32:14.
²⁶⁰ Deuteronomy 32:14.
²⁶¹ Genesis 45:18.
²⁶² Having established the premise that the term cheilev
²⁶³ Ezekiel 24:4.
²⁶⁴ The 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
²⁶⁵ Further, Verse 17.
²⁶⁶ Ramban’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
²⁶⁷ Verses: 4 and 10, etc. And yet even the Karaites do not forbid these foods!
²⁶⁸ Exodus 29:22. This shows that the fat of the tail is not called cheilev
²⁶⁹ Further, 8:25.
²⁷⁰ Torath Kohanim, Vayikra
²⁷¹ Further, 7:3.
²⁷² “On the Eighth Day” of Initiation. It is the third section in this Book of Vayikra, known as Shemini
²⁷³ Further, 9:10. The use of the separate terms there thus clearly proves that not everything mentioned is cheilev;
²⁶⁸ Exodus 29:22. This shows that the fat of the tail is not called cheilev
²⁷⁴ Ibid.
²⁷⁵ Ibid.
²⁷⁶ Ibid.
²⁷⁷ So 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
²⁷⁸ Proverbs 26:5. Ramban’s allusion [in his words “for in matters of Torah it has been said, Answer
²⁷⁹ Aboth 2:14.
²⁸⁰ “In order to.” In our standards text of the Mishnah: “and know what to.”
²⁸¹ See in Exodus, Vol. II, p. 99, Note 230.
²⁸² I.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).
²⁸³ In other words, since chelbo
²⁸⁴ Or since v’ha’alyah
²⁸⁵ Joshua 8:33. Here u’zkeinav
²⁸⁶ Further, 7:25.
²⁸⁷ Ramban’s intent is to Ibn Ezra’s statement there that cheilev
²⁸⁸ In 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
²⁸⁹ Chullin 117a.
²⁹⁰ Further, 7:23.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 3:12:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 3:12:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/3:12:1)

**וְאִם עֵז קָרְבָּנוֹ** הִזְכִּיר הַמִּין אִם מִמִּין הָעִזִּים קָרְבָּנוֹ כְּדַעַת אוּנְקְלוֹס (תרגום אונקלוס על ויקרא ג':י"ב) שֶׁאָמַר "מִן בְּנֵי עִזַּיָּא", וְכֵן מַה שֶׁאָמַר בָּעוֹלָה (ויקרא א':י') "מִן הַכְּשָׂבִים אוֹ מִן הָעִזִּים" מִמִּינָם. וְעַל דַּעְתִּי לֹא יַקְפִּיד לְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ בְּשֵׁם הַבְּהֵמוֹת, כִּי בְּרֻבָּם שֵׁם אֶחָד לַזָּכָר וְלַנְּקֵבָה, כְּגָמָל וַחֲמוֹר וְשָׁפָן וְאַרְנֶבֶת וַחֲזִיר, וּבָעוֹפוֹת יוֹנָה וְתוֹר, וְגַם בַּמִּינִים אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם שֵׁמוֹת לַזָּכָר וְלַנְּקֵבָה, כְּגוֹן שׁוֹר וּפָרָה כֶּשֶׂב כִּשְׂבָּה תַּיִשׁ וְעֵז, לֹא יַקְפִּיד וְאָמַר שֶׂה וְשׁוֹר לִנְקֵבָה, כְּעִנְיָן שֶׁכָּתוּב (ויקרא כ"ב:כ"ח) "וְשׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ" וְהוּא בְּפָרָה וְכִשְׂבָּה בִּלְבַד, כְּדַעַת הָאוֹמֵר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב (חולין עח). וְכֵן "מִן הָעִזִּים זָכָר תָּמִים יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ" (ויקרא א':י'), מִן הַתְּיָשִׁים, "וְאִם עֵז קָרְבָּנוֹ" זָכָר אוֹ נְקֵבָה, וְכֵן "וְאִם לֹא תַגִּיעַ יָדוֹ דֵּי שֶׂה" (ויקרא ה':ז'), כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירַת עִזִּים:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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*,²⁹¹ 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 opinion²⁹² 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*,²⁹³ 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 says²⁹⁴ 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*,²⁹¹ means of the *t’yashim* (the he-goats). *And if his offering be an ‘eiz’* (*a goat*)²⁹⁵ 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*)²⁹⁶ means *a ewe-lamb or a she-goat* [as is expressly stated there in the preceding verse].²⁹⁷, 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.

footnotes:
²⁹¹ Above, 1:10.
²⁹² The above was the interpretation of Ibn Ezra. Hence Ramban now states, “in my opinion … ”
²⁹³ Further, 22:28.
²⁹⁴ Chullin 78b. The name of the Sage is Rabbi Yehudah.
²⁹¹ Above, 1:10.
²⁹⁵ Here in Verse 12.
²⁹⁶ Further, 5:7.
²⁹⁷ Ibid.