Lévitique 7:20

But the man who eateth of the flesh of the hallowed sacrifice that is offered before the Lord with his uncleanness upon him, that man shall be destroyed from among his people.

while he is ritually impure either an intrinsic ritual impurity (e.g., someone who suffers from a constant flow, someone who has ṣara‘at , or even a man who has had a nocturnal emission ) or a derived ritual impurity (e.g., ritual impurity acquired from a corpse, or from someone who suffers from a constant flow, or from someone who has ṣara‘at , or from a quadruped that is unfit for food, or from a ritually impure flying or crawling animal). Once a certain Sadducee [a derogatory reference to a Karaite — Translator] approached me and asked if the Torah forbade eating the fat-tail. I told him the truth, saying that although the fat-tail falls within the category of suet (as it is written: “its suet: the entire fat-tail…” [3:9]), our ancestors permitted it to be eaten and forbade all other suet. He then replied, Doesn’t the Torah prohibit all suet? — for it is written: “Eat no suet or blood” [3:17]; and this injunction is preceded by, “it is an everlasting decree for your generations…” [3:17]. I answered that the abovementioned verse appears in the context of the peace-offering. The phrase, “it is an everlasting decree for your generations in all your dwelling places” is not an irrefutable proof of his thesis, since Scripture also says, “You will eat [from the new crop] neither bread, nor parched grain, nor kernels, until that very day, until you bring the offering of your God” [23:14] — and there Scripture also says, “it is an everlasting decree…”. By this reasoning, we may not eat bread in Exile, since we have not brought the ‘Omer offering! He continued to argue, citing, Never eat the suet of cattle, sheep, and goats. I continued to refute him, pointing out that this verse also appears in the context of the peace-offering. My evidence is the qualifier in “Whoever eats the suet of animals that are brought as offerings to God” [:25]. Consider the consequences of his reasoning: the abovementioned qualifier is now needed only to exclude from the prohibition all meat that is not brought as a peace-offering (i.e., ordinary meat). Accordingly, this parasha specifies that the suet of an animal that dies by itself [Hebrew: neveylah] and the suet of an animal that has been torn [Hebrew: ṭereyfah] may be used for any purpose other than eating . The meat of a neveylah and of a ṭereyfah are elsewhere known to be forbidden [Deuteronomy 14:21; Exodus 22:30]; but it is the meat that is prohibited. Since the suet of such an animal is not brought on top of the Altar, one might think that it is permissible for food — hence the verse admonishes, other than eating . Consequently, Scripture did not need to repeat the prohibition against blood; and this passage was written to teach us the punishment for eating the suet of sanctified animals. Likewise, the verse Nor will you eat blood… exists only to incorporate birds in the prohibition — this is why the suet of birds is permissible [Karetot 4a]. The conclusive proof is that the Book of Deuteronomy mentions that meat of luxury (i.e., ordinary meat) is completely permissible, and in three different places excludes only the blood [Deuteronomy 12:23; 12:24; 12:25] — without any mention of suet! At this point the eyes of the Sadducee [a derogatory reference to a Karaite — Translator] were opened, and an oath escaped his lips, that he would not rely on his own reasoning for the derivation of the Commandments, but that he would depend on the exegesis of the traditional commentators.