Leviticus 22:8

Lev 22:8 That which dieth of itself, or is torn [with beasts], he shall not eat to defile himself therewith: I [am] the LORD.

Ver. 8. See on Lev 17:15 Exo 22:31.

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.

dieth of itself--The feelings of nature revolt against such food. It might have been left to the discretion of the Hebrews, who it may be supposed (like the people of all civilized nations) would have abstained from the use of it without any positive interdict. But an express precept was necessary to show them that whatever died naturally or from disease, was prohibited to them by the operation of that law which forbade them the use of any meat with its blood.

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

8. Cp. Lev_17:15.

10–16 describe those to whom, outside the priestly body, permission to eat of the holy things may be extended.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts,.... Whether fowls or beasts, and even clean ones, which, had they been killed in a proper manner, were fit to cut, but dying of themselves, or torn to pieces by other birds or beasts of prey, might not, see Eze 44:31,

he shall not eat, to defile himself therewith; being impure food, at least in a ceremonial sense, and not fit to be eaten; these things were forbid a common Israelite, and much less might a priest eat of them, see Lev 17:15,

I am the Lord; who enjoin this, and expect to be obeyed.

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

The pollution in the priests would be an aggravated one, inasmuch as they would have to forego their sacred functions. Compare Eze 4:14; Eze 44:31. The general prohibition occurs in Lev 11:39; Lev 17:15; Exo 22:31.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

That. See chap. xvii. 15.

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).

8. Dieth of itself — This is prohibited on ceremonial grounds, because the blood is in the veins, and on sanitary grounds, because the blood corrupts and poisons the flesh.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה בה CARRION, OR THAT WHICH IS TORN HE SHALL NOT EAT TO BECOME UNCLEAN THEREBY — It is with regard to the defilement that Scripture lays down this prohibition: that if he (the priest) eats the carrion of a clean bird — which has no defiling effect through being touched or carried but has a defiling effect only when eaten, as soon as it is in the gullet — he is forbidden to eat holy things (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 6). And it was necessary for Scripture to mention טרפה also, in order to define what נבלה is here intended, viz., one that can have a טרפה amongst the individuals of its class: therefore the נבלה of an unclean bird is excluded, for in its class a טרפה can never occur (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 17:15).

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.

N’VEILAH’ (THAT WHICH DIETH OF ITSELF) ‘U’TREIFAH’ (OR IS TORN OF BEASTS) HE SHALL NOT EAT TO DEFILE HIMSELF THEREWITH. Scripture is stating that [the priest] should be careful not to eat n’veilah or treifah so that he should not become defiled therewith, and then it will be necessary for him to be separated from the holy things, and treifah, since the law applies to all Israelites (See Exodus 22:30 on treifah, and Deuteronomy 14:21 on n’veilah). Ramban’s explanation is that since the main theme of this section is to warn the priests to separate themselves from holy things when they are in a state of impurity, therefore the Torah mentions here the admonition against their eating n’veilah and treifah, since by so doing they will not only have transgressed a law which applies to all Israel, but they will also have to separate themselves from the Sanctuary and its holy things, as they will have been rendered impure. and he will not be able to eat of them until he bathes his flesh in water, and when the sun is down, he shall be clean. And the reason [why He mentioned here the prohibition against eating n’veilah and treifah], is that since He had referred to every sort of impurity which can occur to a person, seeing that He mentioned leprosy and an issue, which includes male and female, and the impurity of the dead, (Verse 5), this refers to the dead.” (Torath Kohanim, Emor 4:4). of semen, and of a swarming thing, therefore He goes back [in the verse before us] to warn [the priests to separate themselves] from the holy things when they are impure because of n’veiloth, and He warned them about this by way of an admonition against eating them. And the reason [why He singled out n’veilah and treifah in warning the priests not to eat them, and He did not mention those creeping things which also render the eater impure], is because a man’s soul finds it loathsome to eat creeping things, but it does not find n’veilah and treifah loathsome. Therefore He mentioned here [the prohibition against eating food which conveys] impurity in the case of [that food] which it is common [to eat]. Now the word treifah mentioned here [which renders the eater impure, must perforce] mean an animal that was torn by a lion or bear which killed it in the field, for when it is still alive [and is then slaughtered ritually] it does not convey impurity [although it may not be eaten. The term treifah which the Torah mentions here as conveying impurity to one who eats it, is applicable, however, even to an animal that was not killed when torn by beasts], for from the moment when it is torn by the lion [or any beast] it is called treifah (“torn”), whether it is alive or after its death. since it was not ritually slaughtered, the Torah still calls it here treifah, for from the moment when it is torn by the beast it is called treifah, whether it is alive or after its death. Thus He mentioned here all sources of impurity, for having stated that animals of the forbidden species [which are not mentioned here, although they do convey impurity to one who eats them], cannot be [made permissible by] ritual slaughtering, be eaten, even if ritually slaughtered, conveys impurity to the one who eats of it [in addition of course to having violated the prohibition against eating it], because there is no law of ritual slaughter regarding it, and it is therefore included under the term n’veilah. An animal of the permitted species, which, when ritually slaughtered, is found to have an organic disease which renders it forbidden for eating, does not convey impurity to the person who eats it, although he has transgressed the law which prohibits the eating of treifah. as I have explained in the section of ‘Vay’hi Bayom Ha’shemini’ (And it came to pass on the eighth day), 11:24. it is [automatically] included under the term of n’veilah [which is mentioned here]. This is by way of the plain meaning of Scripture. The [Rabbinical] explanation likewise interprets [this verse as an admonition] about holy things with reference to impurity, namely that the verse speaks of the carrion of a bird of a permissible species 3:14). If there is, however, an intention to eat it, and it has been rendered susceptible to impurity [by having come into contact with liquid], it is like any other food and may itself contract a first grade impurity, but only if it itself comes into contact with an object that conveys impurity. It is not, however, capable of rendering the eater impure, as human beings cannot become impure through contact with food. The case of the carrion of a bird of a permitted species is a special exception, because in that case the Torah declared that it conveys impurity automatically if eaten [but not if merely touched], although it itself has not received impurity from another object. In short, it is, if eaten, a primary source of impurity which renders the eater impure. [i.e., which died by itself, or has not been slaughtered properly], which has no defiling effect by means of contact or carrying, but [conveys] impurity only when in the [eater’s] gullet, and thus it forbids him to eat [subsequently] of the holy things. And we must then explain [that when Scripture states here] ‘u’treifah’ (or is torn of beasts), of a permitted species of bird, which is n’veilah, why then did Scripture here mention treifah altogether? The answer is: it was necessary for Scripture to state here also u’treifah etc. [it is in order to define the term n’veilah, and to explain that this law of impurity of n’veilah refers only] to those kinds [of birds] that can have a treifah [i.e., to those species which may usually be eaten if slaughtered properly, but which are nonetheless treifah if found to be suffering from certain organic diseases, and consequently forbidden to be eaten], thus excluding the carrion of a bird of one of the forbidden species, for in its class no treifah is ever possible [for such a bird, even if ritually slaughtered, is still n’veilah, since the law of treifah only applies to such birds which, if they were healthy, would be permitted as food by means of ritual slaughter, which does not apply to these forbidden species], as is stated in the language of Rashi [here]. And as far as the impurity of other n’veiloth is concerned, [so that the priest must be careful not to be defiled by them as this will make it necessary for him to be separated from the holy things, although they are not expressly mentioned in Scripture], they have been included in the Torath Kohanim on the basis of the following interpretation: 4:4. “Or whosoever toucheth ‘b’chol’ (any) swarming thing. I would only know the swarming thing. How do I know to include n’veilah? From the expression b’chol (any).”

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.