Deuteronomy 12:22

Deu 12:22 Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat them: the unclean and the clean shall eat [of] them alike.

Ver. 22. Even as the roebuck,] i.e., As common and profane meats; for these creatures were rejected for sacrifice.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Deu 12:22. As the roe-buck — As common or unhallowed food. They might eat of such cattle as were appointed for sacrifices, no less than of those not so appointed. The unclean — Because there was no holiness in such meat for which the unclean might be excluded from it.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten, so shalt thou eat them, &c.--Game when procured in the wilderness had not been required to be brought to the door of the tabernacle. The people were now to be as free in the killing of domestic cattle as of wild animals. The permission to hunt and use venison for food was doubtless a great boon to the Israelites, not only in the wilderness, but on their settlement in Canaan, as the mountainous ranges of Lebanon, Carmel, and Gilead, on which deer abounded in vast numbers, would thus furnish them with a plentiful and luxuriant repast.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten,.... Which were not only clean creatures, as before observed, but were commonly and frequently eaten, there being plenty of them in those parts:

so thou shalt eat them; their oxen and calves, their sheep and lambs, their goats and their kids:

the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike; no difference being to be made on that account, with respect to common food; See Gill on Deu 12:15 which all alike might partake of, notwithstanding any ceremonial uncleanness that any might be attended with.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Alike. This must be understood of those who had contracted only a smaller stain, which did not communicate the uncleanness to others, but debarred people from approaching to sacred things. (Calmet) --- Those who had touched the dead, &c., were not allowed to eat with people, who were not under any such legal uncleanness. (Menochius)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

As the roebuck and the hart; as common or unhallowed food, though they be of the same kind with the sacrifices which are offered to God.

The unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike, because there was no holiness in such meat for which the unclean might be excluded from it.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

As the roe-buck - As common or unhallowed food, tho' they be of the same kind with the sacrifices which are offered to God. The unclean - Because there was, no holiness in such meat for which the unclean might be excluded from it.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Only the flesh that was slaughtered was to be eaten as the hart and the roebuck (cf. Deu 12:15), i.e., was not to be made into a sacrifice. יחדּו, together, i.e., the one just the same as the other, as in Isa 10:8, without the clean necessarily eating along with the unclean.

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי וגו׳ BUT ONLY AS THE GAZELLE [AND THE HART] IS EATEN, [SO THOU SHALT EAT THEM] — i.e. thou art not admonished to eat them in a state of cleanness as is the case with sacrifices which you slaughter in a holy place; if, however, you will argue: How is the case with the gazelle and the hart? Their fat is permitted as food; so, too, is the fat of non-consecrated domestic animals (חולין) permitted! Then I reply: Scripture says אך (which word has a limitative force and thus indicates that חולין are not to be treated like the gazelle and the hart in every respect) (cf. Bekhorot 15a).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

ACH’ (BUT) ONLY AS THE GAZELLE AND AS THE HART IS EATEN, SO THOU SHALT EAT THEM. This means as he explains [at the end of this verse], the unclean and the clean may eat thereof alike. Since He had commanded in the wilderness that they may not eat of the herd and flock except as peace-offerings and He warned them that the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Eternal, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off, he states here that [upon coming into the Land] one may eat the meat of unconsecrated animals with the full desire of his soul, and [further that] he may eat it from one vessel together with an unclean person just as, in the wilderness, they may eat the gazelle and the hart which may not be offered upon the altar. Now, the expression as the gazelle and as the hart does not mean that one may eat the fat of unconsecrated animals just as he may eat the fat of the gazelle and the hart [from which all the fat may be eaten], since the verse speaks only of the manner of eating [as if to say:] in the same way that you eat the gazelle and the hart so may you eat the meat which you slaughter in all places. The verse does not state “whatever is eaten of the gazelle and the hart, you may eat of the unconsecrated animals.” Therefore, [in order to avoid the misconception that all fat of unconsecrated animals may be eaten] he explains everywhere the unclean and the clean may eat thereof alike, and says nowhere [only] “they may eat it as the gazelle and the hart,” in order [to make it clear] that the fat should not be included [in the comparison of unconsecrated animals to the hart and gazelle].Now the word ach [but — ‘But’ only as the gazelle etc.] constitutes an admonition: since at first it was forbidden to eat [meat] except for the peace-offerings that were slaughtered in [the court of] the Tabernacle, and now, when he made it permissible to slaughter and eat in their cities after all the desire of thy soul, it might have appeared that one may eat it as unconsecrated meat and [if one wishes] even as consecrated meat, as was originally permitted [before the Tabernacle was erected], offering [the blood and the fat] on a bamah (high place). Therefore he stated and warned, But only as the gazelle and the hart, so thou shalt eat them, meaning that you may offer of them neither fat nor blood [on the bamah] and that you should not handle it in the manner of consecrated meat and not warn unclean people away from them at all.He had to mention Only you should not eat the blood for many reasons. For at first He said with reference to the prohibition of eating blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, from which it might appear that blood that does not atone, [such as that of] an unconsecrated animal, would not be prohibited; therefore, it was necessary to prohibit it clearly. In the case of fat, however, Scripture did not mention [such a reason for] its prohibition thereof; and [in the case of an unconsecrated animal] not all fat which is burned on the altar as the sacrificial portion of the offering is forbidden, nor is every part [of an offering] that is not burned on the altar permitted to be eaten [in the case of an unconsecrated animal], as I have written in its place., 3:9. Hence it was unnecessary to say that certain fats of an unconsecrated animal may not be eaten. Moreover, since he commanded here that we slaughter [the unconsecrated animal] and warned that we eat it in the same manner as the gazelle and the hart, it might have appeared that we are to cover its blood just as we have been commanded concerning the gazelle and the hart;, 17:13). This law does not apply to cattle. Now, since Scripture compares the unconsecrated animal to the gazelle and the hart which are in the class of wild animals we might have reasoned that the law of covering the blood also applies to unconsecrated animals; therefore it became necessary etc. therefore it became necessary [to repeat the prohibition against blood in order] to permit the pouring out of the blood upon the earth as water without covering it, [a permissibility that was not apparent in the original prohibition in Leviticus 17:11]. This is the sense of the expression ‘upon’ the earth, not “into” the earth [which would have implied] that “we cover it with dust.” And since it was necessary to mention the permission of [pouring out] the blood [without covering it] he introduced it by stating the prohibition [against eating it]. Additionally, Scripture feared lest we [mistakenly] reason concerning blood as follows: In the wilderness at a time when all their herds and flocks were peace-offerings, the meat was forbidden to be eaten until the priest would sprinkle the blood upon the altar, for such is the law of the offerings; thus the blood prevented them from eating the meat; and He further commanded concerning the gazelle and the hart that, because they are not brought as offerings, we must cover their blood with dust, and so also the blood of a fowl because a fowl may not be offered as a peace-offering. And if so [it would logically follow that] we be required to cover the blood of cattle that were slaughtered because one desired meat, or that we eat [the blood] together with the meat by stabbing the animal [instead of ritual slaughtering, in which case a large flow of blood would be avoided] and the blood would not be seen in the open field, Verse 5. for it would be more seemly that it be permissible even to eat pure blood than to pour it out upon the ground so that they shall not offer their sacrifices unto the satyrs, after whom they go astray., Verse 7. To pour blood upon the ground would give the appearance of a sacrifice to satyrs. Therefore he said that one should slaughter the herd and flock [by means of ritual slaughtering despite the abundant flow of blood] and not eat the blood with the meat through stabbing or by cutting a limb from a living animal; instead, one is to pour the blood upon the earth and not be apprehensive over it, but he must not eat it, neither alone nor with the meat. For this reason it was necessary to mention this law once more. in the case of a blemished firstling, because at first [when the firstling was yet perfect] the blood thereof was to be sprinkled upon the altar, and, therefore, it was necessary to state that when it is blemished [and thus no longer fit for the altar] they should not treat its blood with sanctity, nor with permissibility, but they are to pour it out like water and not eat it.It appears to me as a reason for this matter that at first when they were in the desert, a howling wilderness, 32:10. a place where satyrs dance there, and all those who came forth from Egypt were accustomed [to sacrifice to these satyrs], He forbade that the blood be seen in the open field and also to slaughter at all, except before the Tabernacle of G-d in order to wean them from that sin. But upon coming into the Land, when it was necessary to permit them meat of desire due to the distance from the Sanctuary, he did not fear that the blood of the herd and flock might be poured upon the ground in their homes. However, in the case of the wild animal and fowl which one traps in the field and forest, and it is customary to slaughter them there and bring them home already slaughtered, he left the commandment as it was, to cover their blood with dust, in order that they should not offer it to the satyrs. Now the Midrash of our Rabbis on the verses, Only be steadfast in not eating the blood, and Thou shalt not eat it, that it may go well with thee is a very fitting one and is appropriate to the language of Scripture, that they had a great passion for [eating blood]. 76. Therefore all these admonitions were necessary, and so much more was it necessary to mention the prohibition [against eating blood] although he did not mention the prohibition of eating [forbidden] fat.Now, it is true that this comment of our Rabbis suffices as a reason for the many admonitions that Scripture states [about blood]. Yet the expression which he said, Only be steadfast in not eating the blood is not clear to me, for what steadfastness and courage are there required to guard against [eating] blood? It would have been proper that he indicate its stringency by stating, “Take heed to yourself not to eat the blood.” Now, we find the term “steadfastness” with reference to [all] the commandments, as the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Joshua, Only be steadfast and very courageous, to observe to do according to all the law, which Moses My servant commanded thee, and so did Joshua say to Israel, Therefore be ye very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses., 23:6. Now these expressions [found in Joshua] refer to all the commandments, to keep, alluding to the negative commandments, and to do, alluding to the positive commandments. But pertaining to a single commandment there is nowhere found such an expression, for, indeed, what need is there for “steadfastness” in a matter which requires only “to sit and not do” something forbidden by one of the negative commandments? But it appears to me that he mentioned steadfastness [in this prohibition against eating blood] for the reason that they were attached to blood in Egypt: that they always slaughtered their sacrifices to the satyrs, as it is written, And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto the satyrs, after whom they go astray, Verse 7. To pour blood upon the ground would give the appearance of a sacrifice to satyrs. and it is further stated, They sacrificed unto demons, no-gods. Now, the worship [of these satyrs] consisted of eating from the blood of the sacrifices, because the blood would cause the demons to assemble and they [the worshippers] would eat over it and from it, as if they were invited by the demons to eat at the table of those demons and they become attached to them. This has already been mentioned in the book Moreh Nebuchim. This is not the main reason for the prohibition of eating blood, for Scripture itself explains the reason thereof, that the blood is the life, as is mentioned in the section Acharei Moth. But from this verse here it is clear that they were engrossed in it, and very much in pursuit of it, and they used to prophesy by means of it and tell of things to come. Therefore the verse proceeds and warns that if one should hear from blood-eaters any future event and the sign or the wonder come to pass his heart should not be enticed but instead hold fast to his integrity and his belief in G-d, and he should by no means eat of the blood nor cover up this practice [i.e., justifying it by some means]; he is not to be afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they are vanity, a work of delusion. Thus he warned here in the same manner that was used in admonishing concerning the false prophet because of his deceptions.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.