אם זכר אם נקבה, be it male or female; the repetition of the word אם between the words זכר and נקבה indicates that the Torah does not favour a male animal over a female animal when it comes to the offering of such peace-offerings.

ואם עז קרבנו, If his offering consists of a she-goat, etc. According to Torat Kohanim, the reason why the Torah interrupted the presentation of its subject with the legislation about the goat-offering is to teach that the אליה, fat of the tail, did not have to be included in the part to be offered on the altar (compare 2,9). We must first understand what is meant by "interrupted the subject?" Korban Aharon writes that whereas the Torah should have written here ואם עז, it wrote אם עז. This is obviously erroneous, seeing the Torah does write ואם עז.

The ריב"א (Rabbi Yitzchak ben Asher Halevi), writes in a Tossaphot on Pessachim 96 that although the procedure outlined by the Torah for the offering of a goat is identical to that of the category כבש in the preceding paragraph except for the offering of the אליה, the fact that it was accorded a separate paragraph must be viewed as an "interruption." As far as I am concerned what the author of Torat Kohanim had in mind is quite simple. When the Torah dealt with the procedures involving the עולה, the burnt-offering, the Torah wrote a paragraph commencing with the words: "if the burnt offering consists of the flock, either sheep or goats, etc. (1,10)," no separate paragraph is accorded to the goats serving as burnt-offering. If, nonetheless, the Torah wrote a special paragraph when the goats serve as peace-offerings, this must certainly be viewed as "an interruption." It indicates that this paragraph must contain a new הלכה.

The paragraph does not start with the word אם but with the word ואם, to teach that all the laws pertaining to the זבח שלמים, peace-offering sacrifices, outlined previously in the first paragraph of chapter three, apply to such offerings. The only reason that the Torah interrupted its outline of the peace-offerings was to iindicate that the אליה of a goat did not need to be offered on the altar. The reason we know this is that in the enumeration of the details of a peace-offering consisting of a goat (after having listed the details of such offerings when they consisted of sheep), the only detail not mentioned is the reference to the fat of its tail.

As to the absence of mention of an אליה when the Torah described the procedure of a peace-offering consisting of cattle, there was no need to write anything to exclude this as cattle do not possess a tail wich would fit the definition of אליה. Seeing that no one would have imagined that such a tail be offered on the altar even though it was mentioned in the paragraph dealing with sheep, there was no need to write anything which would serve to exclude the tail of the peace-offering consisting of cattle from being offered on the altar. The author of Torat Kohanim was perfectly justified then in writing that the rule about אליה does not apply to cattle, though there is no word in the Torah which excludes it. The rule we had established earlier that when a paragraph starts with the letter ו, the laws mentioned in the former paragraph and those mentioned in the subsequent paragraph are interchangeable, applies only when the anatomical facts enable us to apply these laws to animals mentioned in either paragraph. When such application is impossible due to the animal mentioned in the former paragraph not possessing the anatomical feature in question, we can ignore such considerations. In the case of an offering consisting of a goat, however, the anatomical conditions which apply to sheep also apply to goats. As a result the Torah needed to exclude the אליה of a goat specifically. Had the Torah lumped sheep and goats together as it did in its description of the rules applying to burnt-offerings, we would have assumed that the fat tail of the goat qualified for burning up on the altar. The Torah therefore wrote a special paragraph dealing with the peace-offerings consisting of goats.

חקת עולם, a perpetual statute, etc. This verse provides us with the ammunition necessary to prove that not only the חלב, certain fat parts of animals which are being offered on the altar, are forbidden for consumption by Jews, but that those fat parts are equally forbidden when the animal has been designated for consumption as חולין, secular purposes. This is why the Torah writes that this statute applies throughout the generations in all parts of the earth where Jews reside. This part of the verse would not make sense unless the prohibition applied to animals not slaughtered as sacrifices. Torat Kohanim (189) also explains the word חקת עולם as applying לבית העולמים, "when the permanent Temple would be built," whereas it explains the word לדורותיכם as לדירותיכם בכל מושבותיכם בארץ ובחוצה לארץ, "in all your dwellings both inside and outside the Holy Land." Seeing the Torah already wrote that this was a perpetual statute, what need was there for the additional words: "for all your generations in all your dwellings?" Clearly, the words חוקת עולם have to be read as a continuation of כל חלב לשם, (3,16), that all the fat parts are to be be offered on the altar, including the periods when the permanent Temple would be built. The Torah continues that this warning (law) is also applicable for all times and in all places, even in the diaspora. We might have thought that prohibition of these fat parts was a reasonable prohibition while these parts were offered as something sacred on the altar, but that at times when the entire sacrifice legislation was in abeyance due to the absence of a Temple or Tabernacle, such a prohibition did not make sense; we might also have argued that this legislation should apply only in locations where the Tabernacle or Temple was situated but not in other locations; the Torah therefore had to write that it applies unconditionally and universally. [The thought presented here by our author that there was a case for arguing that this fat should be permitted, may be based on the fact that the Torah permitted meat not offered on the altar (Deut. 12,20) after the Israelites settled in the Holy Land, while in the desert no meat other than sacrificial meat was permitted for general consumption. Ed.]