With barbecue season underway, here is a blast from the past considering forbidden fats. Put a fork in it!
Drifting through the small group of friends and family is the familiar and pleasing smell of sizzling steaks and hamburgers on the grill. People chat amiably about the week as children play: work, the weather, life, and lessons learned. As the cook pulls the meat off the grill, the subject turns to the Torah portion for the week, Tzav. One of the men questions whether it is right to eat any of the meat because there is fat with it. The cook, obviously insulted, makes a wise crack about Jack Sprat and everyone else seems uncomfortable. Is he right? Finally, the cook recalls his study of the passage and replies that the fat prohibited in Leviticus 7:22-25 is limited to the fat of animals that died naturally, were torn by beasts, or were offered as sacrifices.
There is a principle of Torah interpretation that whenever a command that appears to be general in nature is elsewhere explained and made more specific, the more specific interpretation is correct. One example is the command not to wear a garment of different sorts (Deut. 22:11, Lev. 19:19). This could be taken to exclude any garment that is not made of only one material. Yet in the immediate context of both verses, the different sorts are described: linen and wool. There is to be no mixture of plant and animal fibers, reinforcing a distinction of creation. This principle of Torah interpretation will help explain the general command, “You shall not eat any fat,” in Leviticus 7:23.
There are two aspects of what “any fat” means. The first is what fat of any animal is included and the second is to what animals in what situations does the command apply. The type of fat is defined numerous times. It is only the fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is on the entrails, the two kidneys and all the fat that is on them by the flanks, and the fatty lobe attached to the liver. With sheep the fatty tail is also included. The first aspect of “any fat” is thus limited.
The second aspect is clear from the next few verses. Fat of animals that die naturally or are torn by beasts shall not be eaten. This is sensible since the flesh of such animals should not be eaten. The fat of animals given as an offering by fire to the Lord must not be eaten, which accords well with a parallel passage where the justification for not eating the fat of the sacrifice is that “all the fat is the Lord’s,” as a type of food. To eat it would be to steal from the Lord. With the second aspect so defined, it would appear that the theology of fat is fairly complete but there is one objection that must be addressed.
In Leviticus 3:17, there is a perpetual statute forbidding the eating of fat and blood. When coupled with the command against blood, it would seem that the prohibition of fat would transcend the context of offerings as the prohibition of blood does. To address this possibility, a careful study of the occurrences of the prohibition of blood must be made to see if the prohibition of fat is connected to it outside of the context of offerings. In the passages I consulted, there is no mention of fat (Gen. 9, Lev. 17, Deut. 12, Acts 15). There is no theological principle for not eating fat that would permit it to be extricated from its connection to offerings.
One clear proof text is Nehemiah’s instructions to the people to “eat the fat and drink the sweet” at the conclusion of the reading of the Torah in Nehemiah 8. The people were taught and given the sense of the Torah, and if Ezra and his assistants had made a broad application of “you shall not eat any fat” Nehemiah’s instructions would have been aberrant. Ezra must have taught a limited and biblical sense of fat and it is this sense that saved the barbecue above from becoming a steak-trimming and burger-tossing affair.
