ויקרא, פרק ג׳, פסוק י״ז

Nestled within the intricate laws of the sacrifices is an absolute prohibition against consuming the fat and blood of an animal. Because these specific components are offered on the altar, a misconception could easily arise that the ban on eating them is entirely dependent on the existence of the sacrificial system. To sever this dependency, the laws are presented with emphatic repetition to establish the eternal permanence of the restriction. By defining this Commandment as a divine statute, it is categorized as a law whose profound reasoning is not fully accessible to the human intellect. Unlike moral or logical directives that are naturally remembered, such statutes are susceptible to being forgotten or altered over time, necessitating a decree that they remain unchangeable forever [הכתב והקבלה, ביאור יש״ר]. Alternatively, some commentators suggest that the declaration of an eternal statute actually refers back to the requirement to offer the fats to God, teaching that this practice was not a temporary instruction for the Tabernacle in the desert, but a permanent law that would remain valid in the permanent Temple in Jerusalem [משכיל לדוד, מזרחי, חזקוני].

The fact that this dietary law is explicitly extended to all future generations and every geographical location raises a natural question, as personal physical obligations inherently apply to a person everywhere and at all times regardless. The primary approach among commentators is that this emphasis is specifically designed to uproot any errors stemming from the prohibition's proximity to the sacrificial laws. Without this clarification, one might assume the restriction is only valid when the Temple stands, only within the Land of Israel where sacrifices are offered, or only regarding consecrated animals. Therefore, the mention of future generations ensures the prohibition remains in full force even when the Temple is destroyed. Likewise, the mention of all locations stresses that the ban applies outside the Land of Israel and includes ordinary, non-sacred meat prepared simply for human appetite [רשב״ם, גור אריה, מלבי״ם, ברטנורא]. Furthermore, by strictly observing these dietary restrictions even in exile, the Jewish people express a protest against the notion that the sacrificial laws have become obsolete, actively demonstrating their belief in the eternal nature of those laws [רש״ר הירש].

Regarding the physical nature of the prohibition itself, the restriction on fat does not encompass all animal fat. Rather, it refers specifically to a distinct layer of fat that is covered by a membrane and can be peeled away from the meat, such as the fat surrounding the kidneys. Conversely, fat that is intertwined and mixed within the meat is permitted. This distinction is crucial, as it proves that the fat of the animal's tail is permissible to eat, countering various historical sects that sought to forbid it [הכתב והקבלה, רד״צ הופמן, רלב״ג]. The prohibition concerning blood is exceptionally comprehensive. It is not limited to the lifeblood that pours out during slaughter, but also includes other types of blood, such as that found within the internal organs and the extracted blood squeezed from the meat [תורה תמימה, רלב״ג]. The conceptual pairing of fat and blood creates a legal comparison between the two; just as the forbidden fat is a separate entity that does not combine with the permitted meat to form a prohibited quantity, the blood is also judged as an entirely independent prohibition [תורה תמימה, מלבי״ם].

Several profound conceptual reasons are offered for these dietary restrictions. From a spiritual and symbolic perspective, blood represents the animal's life force and essence, while the fat represents the most material, ego-driven product of its organic existence. While these components are appropriate to be elevated on the altar as a symbol of surrendering one's soul and material wealth to God, human beings are forbidden from ingesting them. This prevents the assimilation of an animalistic, purely material nature into the human spirit [רש״ר הירש, רד״צ הופמן] and protects the heart from becoming spiritually dulled [פרדס יוסף]. Precisely because the altar consumes these parts, a clear boundary is established to prevent human participation in their consumption, preserving the sacred distinction between what is dedicated to the Divine and what is permitted for human enjoyment [חזקוני]. Finally, this restriction carries a hidden moral allegory against robbery. When a person steals from another, they are essentially draining their victim's fat, blood, and life force [שפתי כהן].