Leviticus 3:9

Lev 3:9 And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat thereof, [and] the whole rump, it shall he take off hard by the backbone; and the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that [is] upon the inwards,

Ver. 9. The whole rump.] Which in those country sheep is very large: yet not so large as those in America, mentioned by Sir Francis Drake, {a} as large as cattle, and supplying in the stead of horses for burden or travel.

{a} The World Encompassed.

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.

Lev 3:9; Lev 3:11. The rump — Which in sheep is fat and sweet, and in these countries was much larger and better than in ours. The food of the offering — So called, to denote God’s acceptance of it, and delight in it; as men delight in their food.

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

3:9 broad tail: Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

The burnt offering was wholly consumed, and of the offering made by fire only the inwards, etc. were burnt: the shoulder and breast, with the two jaws and the maw were the Priest’s, and the rest his that offered.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 9. The whole rump, it shall he take off hard by the backbone] To what has already been said on the tails of the eastern sheep, in the note on Ex 29:22, we may add the following observation from Dr. Russel concerning the sheep at Aleppo. "Their tails," says he, "are of a substance between fat and marrow, and are not eaten separately, but mixed with the lean meat in many of their dishes, and also often used instead of butter." He states also that a common sheep of this kind, without the head, fat, skin, and entrails, weighs from sixty to seventy English pounds, of which the tail usually weighs fifteen pounds and upwards; but that those of the largest breed, when fattened will weigh one hundred and fifty pounds, and their tails fifty, which corresponds with the account given by Ludolf in the note referred to above. The sheep about Jerusalem are the same with those in Abyssinia mentioned by Ludolf, and those of Syria mentioned by Dr. Russel.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(9) The whole rump.—Better, the whole fat tail (so also Exo_29:22; Lev_7:3; Lev_8:25; Lev_9:19). The sheep of Syria and Palestine were, and still are, the bread-tailed species, the broad part often weighing fifteen pounds and upwards. In young animals, the substance of the tail, which consists of marrow and fat, tastes like marrow, and it is used by the Arabs for cooking instead of butter. It is often so large that it trails on the ground, and to save the animal from the pain occasioned by dragging it on the ground, a small wheeled truck is attached to it, on which it draws it along. It is only the tail of sheep which is here included among the fat parts that are to be offered upon the altar. It is, however, not regarded as the ordinary fat of other quadrupeds (Lev_9:19), and hence, according to Jewish tradition, is not included in the prohibition of Lev_3:3.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. The fat tail here reserved for sacrifice was regarded as a delicacy, and set before Saul. In 1Sa_9:24 for ‘that which was upon it’ should be read ‘the fat tail’; see Driver in loc., and note on Exo_29:22.

the backbone] The Heb. word occurs here only.

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.

And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering,.... That is, the priest, Aaron, or one of his two sons:

an offering made by fire unto the Lord; that part of it which was to be burnt with fire; and in the peace offering of the lamb there was something more than in the peace offering of the bullock, or of the goat, which follows:

the fat thereof, and the whole rump, it shall he take off hard by the backbone; not the rump or tail, but the fat of it; the copulative "and" is not in the text; wherefore Aben Ezra says, that Gaon was mistaken in reading it as we do, "the fat there of", and "the whole rump"; but it should be rendered, "its fat of the whole rump", or "tail": in the eastern countries (k), some sheep and lambs had very large tails, and very fat ones, the least weighing ten or twelve pounds, the largest above forty, and were put in little carts for ease and safety; see Gill on Exo 29:22 now such as were "whole", entire, perfect, and without blemish, as the word signifies, the fat of them that was next to the backbone was to be taken off of such as were brought for peace offerings:

and the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards; as before; See Gill on Lev 3:3.

(k) Vid. Ludolf. Hist. Ethiop. l. 1. c. 10. sect. 14.

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

The whole rump - The whole fat tail: i. e., the tail of the kind of sheep well known in the East, and often weighing 15 lbs. and even as much as 50 lbs., when the sheep has been increased by artificial fattening.

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

Whole rump. Septuagint, "the loin without blemish." The tail of the Arabian sheep is extremely large and fat, weighing eight or ten pounds; so that it is necessary to support it on a vehicle. (Busbecq. ep. 3.) The tail was not sacrificed in any other species. (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).

The fat thereof, and the whole rump, which in sheep is fat and sweet, and in these parts was; cry much larger and better than ours, as is agreed both by ancient and modern writers, and therefore was fitly offered to God.

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

9. The whole rump — We know of no more unfortunate translation than this. Instead of rump, it should have been rendered fat tail. In the East there is a species of sheep whose tails are so large that they weigh from twelve to fourteen pounds, and the owners are obliged to fix a thin board or cart beneath the tail to ease the sheep, and to preserve the wool and fat from being torn among the bushes and stones. See Ludolph, History of Ethiopia, p. 53, and Dr. Russell, Natural History of Aleppo, p. 51. The cooks of Syria use this mass of fat instead of Arab butter.

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

The whole rump should no doubt be the whole tail, consisting chiefly of fat, and always regarded as a great delicacy in the East (see Herod., 3:113; Thompson, "Land and the Book," page 97). The burning of the fat tail upon the altar, together with the internal fat, is the only point in which the ritual to be used when offering a sheep (verses 6-11) differs from that used in offering a bull or cow (verses 1-5), or a goat (verses 12-16).

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The rump - Which in sheep is fat, and sweet, and in these parts was very much larger and better than ours.

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

as an offering made by fire

This can be stated in active form. AT: "as a burnt offering" (See: Active or Passive)

The fat, the entire fat ... the kidneys—he will remove all of this

The statement "he will remove all of this" can be placed at the beginning of the sentence. AT: "He will remove the fat, the entire fat ... the kidneys"

inner parts

This is the stomach and intestines.

that is near the inner parts, and the two kidneys

A new sentence can start here. AT: "that is near the inner parts. He must remove the kidneys"

by the loins

This is the part of the body on the sides of the backbone between the ribs and hipbone.

the lobe of the liver

This is the curved or rounded part of the liver. This is considered the best part of the liver to eat. AT: "the best part of the liver"

will burn it all on the altar as a burnt offering of food to Yahweh

Translate this in a way that makes it clear that Yahweh does not actually eat the food. AT: "will burn those things on the altar as an offering to Yahweh. Those things will come from your food supplies"

translationWords

fellowship offering

burnt offering

Yahweh

priest

altar

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

חלבו means: the choicest part in it; and what is this? The whole fat-tail.

לעמת הָעֶצָה — i. e. above the kidneys which give counsel (עֵצָה) (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:22 and Note thereon).

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.

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); so they did eat, and were filled ‘vayashminu’ (and became fat); ‘hashmein’ (make fat) the heart of this people; and my flesh is lean ‘mishamen’ (and hath no fatness); and it shall be rich ‘v’shamein’ (and fat); my soul is satisfied as with marrow ‘vadeshen’ (and fatness), 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, 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 — 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, 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 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, 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. 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 fluid 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, 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.” (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]! 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;. and at the performance thereof it is written, And he took the fat, and the tail, 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: 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. 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:. And ‘ha’cheilev’ (the fat), and the kidneys, and the lobe of the liver, 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.. 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, 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, 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, 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,. 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, … “] 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, “Be diligent in learning Torah, in order to be able to answer the unbeliever.”The Gaon Rav Saadia explained it to them, 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 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.” (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! (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 mention 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. 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, 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 advanced on the verse, Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat, 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.

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.