ויקרא, פרק ז׳, פסוק כ״ד

The laws of kosher dietary practice categorize animals that die of natural causes, are improperly slaughtered, or suffer fatal wounds as unfit for consumption. Yet, the fat of these disqualified animals holds a unique legal status, balancing practical utility, ritual purity, and strict dietary prohibition. A carcass is defined as an animal that dies on its own or is slaughtered improperly, while a torn animal is one killed by a wild beast or afflicted with an incurable disease or physical defect [רלב״ג, ביאור יש״ר, הכתב והקבלה]. During the Israelites' time in the wilderness, meat was permitted only if it came from a peace offering, meaning all the fat from kosher animals was burned on the altar. Consequently, the only fat available for everyday, mundane use came from animals that had died or been torn. The law clarified that while this fat could be used for practical purposes, it remained strictly forbidden to eat. In later generations, this ruling was extended to the fat of all regular, non-sacred animals [שד״ל, ביאור יש״ר, העמק דבר, הופמן].

Although the meat of a dead animal transmits ritual impurity upon contact, its fat is entirely excluded from this impurity and remains completely pure [רש״י, מלבי״ם, הירש]. Furthermore, it is permitted not only for ordinary household tasks but even for sacred purposes, such as treating leather intended for the maintenance of the Tabernacle or Temple [ברטנורא, אדרת אליהו, מזרחי, גור אריה]. This serves as the legal foundation permitting one to derive benefit from and even trade in this fat, a notable exception to other biblical prohibitions [תורה תמימה, הירש]. However, this purity and permission for use apply exclusively to the fat of kosher animal species, not to that of impure animals or wild beasts [תורה תמימה, הירש, אדרת אליהו].

Since the fat of any animal is inherently forbidden for consumption, reiterating the ban against eating the fat of a disqualified animal raises a question. Some explain that this warning prevents a misunderstanding: one might mistakenly assume that since the animal is no longer fit for the altar, its fat loses its sacred restriction and becomes permitted like ordinary meat [ביאור יש״ר, בכור שור]. The primary approach among commentators, however, establishes a fundamental legal principle: a prohibition can take effect on top of an existing prohibition. Even though the fat was already forbidden while the animal was alive, a new layer of prohibition is added once the animal becomes a carcass or is torn. Consequently, a person who eats this fat violates two separate commandments and incurs a double penalty—one for consuming forbidden fat, and another for consuming a disqualified animal. Both a carcass and a torn animal are specified to prevent any misinterpretation. If only a carcass were mentioned, one might assume the double prohibition stems from its severity in transmitting impurity. Conversely, if only a torn animal were mentioned, one might attribute the double prohibition to the fact that its forbidden status can begin while it is still alive. Therefore, both conditions must be explicitly stated to establish the rule [מזרחי, שפתי חכמים, גור אריה].

The emphasis on the prohibition of eating also clarifies that while personal consumption is banned, one is permitted to feed this fat to non-Jews [תורה תמימה, מלבי״ם, הופמן]. This layered prohibition carries practical medical implications as well. If a dangerously ill person requires animal fat as a necessary medicine, they should be given fat from a properly slaughtered kosher animal, which involves only a single prohibition, rather than fat from a torn animal, which carries a double prohibition [פרדס יוסף]. Finally, a Midrashic perspective sees the repeated warning against eating as a hint toward the ultimate future reward: those who restrain themselves from forbidden foods in this world will merit partaking in the grand feast of the Leviathan and the Wild Ox in the world to come [חנוכת התורה].