Leviticus 7:25

Lev 7:25 For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, even the soul that eateth [it] shall be cut off from his people.

Ver. 25. Shall be cut off,] i.e., Shall be liable to God’s judgments.

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.

(25) The fat of the beast of which men offer an offering.—That is, the fat of beeves, sheep, or goats. (See Lev_7:23.) If he did it presumptuously he incurred the penalty of excision, and if he did it inadvertently he was beaten with forty stripes save one, and had to bring the sin offering appointed.

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

Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood,.... Of any of the above creatures, or any other, even of any clean creature, and much less of an unclean one:

whether it be of fowl or of beast; of all sorts and kinds. Jarchi thinks, the words being thus expressed, the blood of fishes and locusts is excepted, and so lawful to eat:

in any of your dwellings; this shows that this law is not to be restrained to creatures slain in sacrifice in the tabernacle, and to the blood of them, but to be understood of all such as were slain in their own houses for food, and the blood of them.

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

25. Of the beast, of which men offer — This is evidently an interdict of the fat of the entire class of sacrificial animals, and not of the particular victims. Fat promotes cutaneous diseases. The prohibition of this article of diet also raised up a barrier between the Israelites and the idolatrous nations by restraining the former from partaking of the festive banquets of the latter. Michaelis suggests that the prohibition of fat was for the purpose of promoting the culture of the olive, and Knobel maintains that it was because the mouth of man is unclean. A better reason is, because it would be an infringement of Jehovah’s rights to eat as common food that which he had sanctified unto himself.

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

To eat of the fat of which men offer an offering made with fire unto the Lord, is to rob God of his chosen offering. The injunction condemns sacrilege in all its forms. Whoever takes to his own use things dedicated to God, "eats the fat;" and" the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people."

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

sacrifice by fire

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

that person must be cut off from his people

A person being excluded from his community is spoken of as if he had been cut off from his people, as one would cut a piece of cloth or cut a branch from a tree. This can be translated in active form. See how you translated this in Leviticus 7:20. (See: Metaphor and Active or Passive)

You must eat no blood

"You must not consume blood"

in any of your houses

"in any of your homes" or "wherever you live"

translationWords

sacrifice

fire

Yahweh

cut off

blood

house

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

FOR WHOSOEVER EATETH THE FAT OF THE BEAST, OF WHICH MAN PRESENTS AN OFFERING … SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE. It is impossible that the explanation of the phrase: of the beast [of which man presents an offering], is that this beast is itself an offering, so that an unconsecrated animal be excluded from this prohibition, since in the section of Vayikra, Scripture has already prohibited all fat in an unqualified manner, without any condition or exception. Here too it prohibited at first all fat of ox, or sheep, or goat, and it further decreed against eating the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts, and these cannot be brought as offerings to G-d. Besides, He said there [in the section of Vayikra], It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, and the expression in all your dwellings is never found in any matter connected with offerings. In speaking of the gifts of the priests He says many times, a statute forever, 6:11, etc. but does not mention “in all your dwellings,” because the offerings are not “a statute forever in all your dwellings,” as they only apply in the Tabernacle and in the place which the Eternal shall choose. Let not the eyes of him who is mistaken refers also to the offerings (see the verse mentioned in the text with reference to the new produce, and also the following note). be blinded by the verse, And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the offering of your G-d; it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. applies also to the offerings, since the verse refers to the omer (a measure of new barley brought as a meal-offering on the second day of Passover). But Ramban answers that the phrase refers not to the omer, but to the new crop which, through the offering of the omer, was henceforth permitted to be eaten (see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 186-188). It is to this prohibition of eating of the new crop before the bringing of the omer [or before the end of the sixteenth day of Nisan], that the phrase in all your dwellings refers. Hence the phrase in all your dwellings which is stated in connection with the prohibitions against eating fat and blood (above, 3:17) must perforce mean that they are applicable everywhere, independent of the existence of the Sanctuary and its offerings. For it is eating of the new crop that is forbidden by law of the Torah in all places, and Scripture is saying that we are not to eat bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears forever in all our dwelling places, until that same day on which we bring the offering of the new barley in the Sanctuary. If the offering is not brought [as when the Sanctuary is destroyed], it does not become forbidden henceforth to eat of the new crop [i.e., after the end of the sixteenth day of Nisan], for He did not say, “ye shall not eat until ye have brought the offering of your G-d,” but instead the prohibition extends until this selfsame day only. Rather, the meaning of until this selfsame day is the one on which you bring the offering when you are in a position to do so, the reason being that the offering should be a new meal-offering [but when you are not able to bring the offering, as when the Sanctuary is destroyed, the prohibition is only until this selfsame day]. It is possible that the word hayom (the day) is connected also with [the latter part of the verse:] “until this selfsame day, until the day ye have brought the offering of your G-d,” [thus clearly indicating that the prohibition depends on the day the offering is brought, and not on the actual bringing thereof].The complete proof that the explanation of the phrase [in the verse before us] the beast of which man presents an offering, is “of the kind of beast from which man presents an offering,” [and not “of the beast which is itself an actual offering,” so that the unconsecrated beast would be excluded from the prohibition against eating of the fat thereof,] is that it says also in the section on valuations, And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the Eternal, all that any man giveth of such unto the Eternal shall be holy, and it explains that this means the kind of beast whereof men bring an offering to G-d. And so also, And if it be any unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Eternal, Verse 11. here clearly stating, “any unclean beast of the kind from which offerings are not brought.” There is no difference whatever between stating it in the plural — whereof men bring, of which they may not bring, Verse 11. — or saying it in the singular [as in the verse before us], of which man presents, for the meaning is “the kind of beast of which man presents an offering.” Similarly He said, And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die, which means the kind of beast of which ye may eat, but not that the particular beast may be eaten [since it is expressly prohibited as meat, as it died without being slaughtered properly].Now since He prohibited all fat of a beast whereof an offering is brought, but not of the kind of which offerings are not brought, it might enter one’s mind to say that a beast which died of itself or was torn [by other beasts] is regarded as a kind from which offerings may not be brought [and therefore their fats may be eaten]; therefore it was necessary to mention [in Verse 24] that [the fats of these animals] are forbidden, and it is this which He said, and ye shall in no wise eat of it, meaning that he who eats it is liable to excision as with all other fats, as He forbade the fat of the entire class of beasts from which offerings are brought, even of those animals which died of themselves or were torn by [wild] beasts. He states, they may be used for any other service, meaning to say that [the fat of a clean animal which died of itself or was torn by beasts] has no law of uncleanness of carrion [but is like ordinary food which has become unclean], 1:5. for since He said, and their carcasses ye shall not touch, He states concerning the fat thereof that one may touch it and use it for any other service. Now if the prohibition of eating fat would apply only to that of actual offerings, why was it necessary to say there in the section of Vayikra, Ye shall not eat any fat, when He had already commanded [in the preceding verse] that it be brought up on the altar as a sweet savor, and how could we eat of the fire-offering of G-d? Why did He not also prohibit the eating of the lobe above the liver and the two kidneys, which are removed from the offerings [and burnt on the altar — yet these may be eaten in the case of ordinary clean animals because they do not come under the term cheilev (fat)]. Moreover, why was it necessary to mention here, Ye shall eat no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat, when it is known that offerings can be brought only from them [it thus being obvious that the prohibition of cheilev applies to all clean animals — hallowed or unhallowed]! The reason why Scripture said concerning dedicated offerings that became invalidated [because of a blemish they received, in which case they are redeemed and may then be slaughtered and eaten as ordinary food], Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof, and did not mention anything concerning the fat, I shall explain when G-d helps me to reach there.

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.