Leviticus 1:8

The Hebrew word for fat refers to the suet, or hard fat, around the kidneys and loins. This term appears only here and in Leviticus 1:12 and 8:20. All fat (not just this specific fat) belonged to God (3:14–17; 7:23–25; see 1 Samuel 2:15–17). The whole burnt offering was the only offering completely burned on the altar. For other offerings, they burned the fatty parts and some internal organs. The rest belonged to the officiating priests and sometimes the worshiper (Leviticus 7:11–18).

burnt offering (Hebrew ‘olah, which means “what goes up”): The Hebrew word suggests the animal rises up in flame and smoke. Its hide was not burned, but given to the officiating priest as payment (Leviticus 7:8). They completely burned this offering on the altar (1:9).

Its purpose was to turn away God’s judgment against sin. It also makes the worshiper clean in a ceremonial way and restores his or her relationship with God (compare Romans 3:25; 8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:18–21). The whole burnt offering appears first in this list of offerings (Leviticus 1–7). It sets a pattern for the offerings that follow. It is the most common offering for atonement.

the fat--that about the kidneys especially, which is called "suet."

If a man were rich and could afford it, it is supposed that he would bring his burnt-sacrifice, with which he designed to honour God, out of his herd of larger cattle. He that considers that God is the best that is will resolve to give him the best he has, else he gives him not the glory due unto his name. Now if a man determined to kill a bullock, not for an entertainment for his family and friends, but for a sacrifice to his God, these rules must be religiously observed: - 1. The beast to be offered must be a male, and without blemish, and the best he had in his pasture. Being designed purely for the honour of him that is infinitely perfect, it ought to be the most perfect in its kind. This signified the complete strength and purity that were in Christ the dying sacrifice, and the sincerity of heart and unblamableness of life that should be in Christians, who are presented to God as living sacrifices. But, literally, in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female; nor is any natural blemish in the body a bar to our acceptance with God, but only the moral defects and deformities introduced by sin into the soul. 2. The owner must offer it voluntarily. What is done in religion, so as to please God, must be done by no other constraint than that of love. God accepts the willing people and the cheerful giver. Ainsworth and others read it, not as the principle, but as the end of offering: "Let him offer it for his favourable acceptation before the Lord. Let him propose this to himself as his end in bringing his sacrifice, and let his eye be fixed steadily upon that end - that he may be accepted of the Lord." Those only shall find acceptance who sincerely desire and design it in all their religious services, Co2 5:9. 3. It must be offered at the door of the tabernacle, where the brazen altar of burnt-offerings stood, which sanctified the gift, and not elsewhere. He must offer it at the door, as one unworthy to enter, and acknowledging that there is no admission for a sinner into covenant and communion with God, but by sacrifice; but he must offer it at the tabernacle of the congregation, in token of his communion with the whole church of Israel even in this personal service. 4. The offerer must put his hand upon the head of his offering, Lev 1:4. "He must put both his hands," say the Jewish doctors, "with all his might, between the horns of the beast," signifying thereby, (1.) The transfer of all his right to, and interest in, the beast, to God, actually, and by a manual delivery, resigning it to his service. (2.) An acknowledgment that he deserved to die, and would have been willing to die if God had required it, for the serving of his honour, and the obtaining of his favour. (3.) A dependence upon the sacrifice, as an instituted type of the great sacrifice on which the iniquity of us all was to be laid. The mystical signification of the sacrifices, and especially this rite, some think the apostle means by the doctrine of laying on of hands (Heb 6:2), which typified evangelical faith. The offerer's putting his hand on the head of the offering was to signify his desire and hope that it might be accepted from him to make atonement for him. Though the burnt-offerings had not respect to any particular sin, as the sin-offering had, yet they were to make atonement for sin in general; and he that laid his hand on the head of a burnt-offering was to confess that he had left undone what he ought to have done and had done that which he ought not to have done, and to pray that, though he deserved to die himself, the death of his sacrifice might be accepted for the expiating of his guilt. 5. The sacrifice was to be killed by the priests of Levites, before the Lord, that is, in a devout religious manner, and with an eye to God and his honour. This signified that our Lord Jesus was to make his soul, or life, an offering for sin. Messiah the prince must be cut off as a sacrifice, but not for himself, Dan 9:26. It signified also that in Christians, who are living sacrifices, the brutal part must be mortified or killed, the flesh crucified with its corrupt affections and lusts and all the appetites of the mere animal life. 6. The priests were to sprinkle the blood upon the altar (Lev 1:5); for, the blood being the life, it was this that made atonement for the soul. This signified the direct and actual regard which our Lord Jesus had to the satisfaction of his Father's justice, and the securing of his injured honour, in the shedding of his blood; he offered himself without spot to God. It also signified the pacifying and purifying of our consciences by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ upon them by faith, Pe1 1:2; Heb 10:22. 7. The beast was to be flayed and decently cut up, and divided into its several joints or pieces, according to the art of the butcher; and then all the pieces, with the head and the fat (the legs and inwards being first washed), were to be burnt together upon the altar, Lev 1:6-9. "But to what purpose," would some say, "was this waste? Why should all this good meat, which might have been given to the poor, and have served their hungry families for food a great while, be burnt together to ashes?" So was the will of God; and it is not for us to object or to find fault with it. When it was burnt for the honour of God, in obedience to his command, and to signify spiritual blessings, it was really better bestowed, and better answered the end of its creation, than when it was used as food for man. We must never reckon that lost which is laid out for God. The burning of the sacrifice signified the sharp sufferings of Christ, and the devout affections with which, as a holy fire, Christians must offer up themselves their whole spirit, soul, and body, unto God. 8. This is said to be an offering of a sweet savour, or savour of rest, unto the Lord. The burning of flesh is unsavoury in itself; but this, as an act of obedience to a divine command, and a type of Christ, was well pleasing to God: he was reconciled to the offerer, and did himself take a complacency in that reconciliation. He rested, and was refreshed with these institutions of his grace, as, at first, with his works of creation (Exo 31:17), rejoicing therein, Psa 104:31. Christ's offering of himself to God is said to be of a sweet-smelling savour (Eph 5:2), and the spiritual sacrifices of Christians are said to be acceptable to God, through Christ, Pe1 2:5.

And he shall kill the bullock. The ceremony of killing is subjoined, viz., that the priest should prepare the victim itself, and pour its blood upon the altar, for it was not allowable for a private person to kill the victim with his own hands, but what the priest did in their name was transferred to them. [250] But this is worth remarking, that although they brought the pledge of reconciliation from their home, yet that the ministers of expiation were to be sought elsewhere, since no one was competent for so illustrious an office, save he who was graced by the holy unction of God. It was, therefore, plainly manifested that all mortals are unworthy of coming near God to propitiate Him, and that the hands of all are in a manner polluted or profane except those which God himself has purged. For the honor of sacrificing came from nowhere else but from the grace of the Spirit, of which the external anointing was a pledge. We now understand how it was that individuals offered sacrifices to God, and yet that the priest alone performed this office. The altar was sprinkled with the blood, that the people might know that the blood poured from the victim did not fall on the ground, but was consecrated to God, and breathed, as it were, a sweet savor; just as now the blood of Christ appears before His face. I pass by the rest, since it does not seem worth while to enlarge on the third kind of offering, i.e., of the birds. Yet we must recollect that thus far Moses only speaks of the burnt-offerings, whose flesh was burned; for this was not the case with all, as we shall see hereafter. Although, then, it is twice said that "the priests shall lay the parts, the head and the fat," etc., we must not understand it as if he only commanded the fat and the head to be burned, but that nothing was to be left the skin. Some think that phdr pheder, [251] is a dissevered head, nor do I reject their opinion, provided we do not exclude the fat. Whatever was filthy in the victim, God would have to be washed, that it might not contaminate it. The question now arises why it was burned either wholly or partially. My own opinion is, that by the fire the efficacy of the Spirit is represented, on which all the profit of the sacrifices depends; for unless Christ had suffered in the Spirit, He would not have been a propitiatory sacrifice. Fire, then, was as the condiment which gave their true savor to the sacrifices, because the blood of Christ was to be consecrated by the Spirit, that it might cleanse us from all the stains of our sins. This God would have more fully represented in the burnt-offerings, yet no victim was offered of which some part was not consumed by fire.

Footnotes:

[249] Lat., "piaculum." Fr., "mais aussi de la malediction a cause du peche."

[250] "It is interesting to notice here, (says Bonar, in loco,) that Outram, Witzius, and others, seem to have proved that in patriarchal ages every man might offer his own sacrifice. The patriarchal ages were taught that every man must take Christ for himself personally. In the Mosaic economy, however, this is altered; there is another truth to be shewn forth. Any one (2 Chronicles 30:17) might kill the animal -- any common Levite, or even the offerer himself -- for there may be many executioners of God's wrath. Earth and hell were used in executing the Father's purpose toward the Prince of Life. But there is only one appointed way for dispensing mercy, and therefore only priests must engage in that act that signified the bestowal of pardon." He appears, however, to be singular in his opinion that any but a Levite might kill the victim.

[251] This word only occurs here, and in ver. 12, and chap. 8:20. S.M. says that the Jewish expositors declare it to mean that fat, or network of fat which is found upon the liver, and with which the severance (locus de-collationis) of the head was covered, when the head was put upon the fire. It is not easy to discover who may have said that it meant a dissevered head. -- W. "Some translate it (says Poole, in loco) the body, or the trunk of the body, (whence, perhaps, C.'s error.) So the ancient Hebrews quoted in Fagius; so Vatablus, Grotius, Malvenda, Mercerus in Bochart."

The priests - shall lay the parts - The sacrifice was divided according to its larger joints.
1. After its blood was poured out, and the skin removed, the head was cut off.
2. They then opened it and took out the omentum, or caul, that invests the intestines.
3. They took out the intestines with the mesentery, and washed them well, as also the fat.
4. They then placed the four quarters upon the altar, covered them with the fat, laid the remains of the intestines upon them, and then laid the head above all.
5. The sacred fire was then applied, and the whole mass was consumed. This was the holocaust, or complete burnt-offering.

And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts,.... That were cut in pieces, Leviticus 1:6 some of which are particularly mentioned:

the head and the fat; the head which was cut off, and the body, the trunk of it; so, Aben Ezra says, the wise men interpret the word "fat", which is only used here and in Leviticus 1:12 and which he thinks is right; though others take it to be the fat caul, or midriff, which parts the entrails; and the Targum of Jonathan renders it, the covering of fat: these are particularly mentioned, but include in general the rest of the pieces, which were laid:

in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar; this disposition of the several parts of the burnt offering upon the altar signifies the laying of Christ upon the cross, and the disposition of his head, his hands, and feet there; according to the usual order of crucifixion: the skin, as before observed, was not burnt, but was the property of the priest, and the sinew that shrunk was taken away, and cast upon the ashes in the middle of the altar (z).

(z) Ib. Maaseh Hakorbanot, c. 6. sect. 4.

The fat; all the fat, which was to be separated from the flesh, and to be put together, to increase the flame, and to consume the other parts of the sacrifice more quickly. Others translate it,

the trunk of the body, as distinguished from the head, and joints, and inward parts.

Ceremonial connected with the offering of an ox as a burnt-offering. עלה (vid., Gen 8:20) is generally rendered by the lxx ὁλοκαύτωμα or ὁλοκαύτωσις, sometimes ὁλοκάρπωμα or ὁλοκάρπωσις, in the Vulgate holocaustum, because the animal was all consumed upon the altar. The ox was to be a male without blemish (ἄμωμος, integer; i.e., free from bodily faults, see Lev 22:19-25), and to be presented "at the door of the tabernacle," - i.e., near to the altar of burnt-offering (Exo 40:6), where all the offerings were to be presented (Lev 17:8-9), - "for good pleasure for him (the offerer) before Jehovah," i.e., that the sacrifice might secure to him the good pleasure of God (Exo 28:38).
Lev 1:4
"he (the offerer) shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering." The laying on of hands, by which, to judge from the verb סמך to lean upon, we are to understand a forcible pressure of the hand upon the head of the victim, took place in connection with all the slain-offerings (the offering of pigeons perhaps excepted), and is expressly enjoined in the laws for the burnt-offerings, the peace-offerings (Lev 3:2, Lev 3:7, Lev 3:13), and the sin-offerings (Lev 4:4, Lev 4:15, Lev 4:24, Lev 4:29, Lev 4:33), that is to say, in every case in which the details of the ceremonial are minutely described. But if the description is condensed, then no allusion is made to it: e.g., in the burnt-offering of sheep and goats (Lev 1:11), the sin-offering (Lev 5:6), and the trespass-offering (Lev 5:15, Lev 5:18, 25). This ceremony was not a sign of the removal of something from his own power and possession, or the surrender and dedication of it to God, as Rosenmller and Knobel
(Note: Hence Knobel's assertion (at Lev 7:2), that the laying on of the hand upon the head of the animal, which is prescribed in the case of all the other sacrifices, was omitted in that of the trespass-offering alone, needs correction, and there is no foundation for the conclusion, that it did not take place in connection with the trespass-offering.)
affirm; nor an indication of ownership and of a readiness to give up his own to Jehovah, as Bhr maintains; nor a symbol of the imputation of sin, as Kurtz supposes:
(Note: This was the view held by some of the Rabbins and of the earlier theologians, e.g., Calovius, bibl. ill. ad Lev. i. 4, Lundius and others, but by no means by "most of the Rabbins, some of the fathers, and most of the earlier archaeologists and doctrinal writers," as is affirmed by Bhr (ii. p. 336), who supports his assertion by passages from Outram, which refer to the sin-offering only, but which Bhr transfers without reserve to all the bleeding sacrifices, thus confounding substitution with the imputation of sin, in his antipathy to the orthodox doctrine of satisfaction. Outram's general view of this ceremony is expressed clearly enough in the following passages: "ritus erat ea notandi ac designandi, quae vel morti devota erant, vel Dei gratiae commendata, vel denique gravi alicui muneri usuique sacro destinata. Eique ritui semper adhiberi solebant verba aliqua explicata, quae rei susceptae rationi maxime congruere viderentur" (l.c. 8 and 9). With reference to the words which explained the imposition of hands he observes: "ita ut sacris piacularibus culparum potissimum confessiones cum poenae deprecatione junctas, voluntariis bonorum precationes, eucharisticus autem et votivis post res prosperas impetratas periculave depulsa factis laudes et gratiarum actiones, omnique denique victimarum generi ejusmodi preces adjunctas putem, quae cuique maxime conveniebant" (c. 9).)
but the symbol of a transfer of the feelings and intentions by which the offerer was actuated in presenting his sacrifice, whereby he set apart the animal as a sacrifice, representing his own person in one particular aspect. Now, so far as the burnt-offering expressed the intention of the offerer to consecrate his life and labour to the Lord, and his desire to obtain the expiation of the sin which still clung to all his works and desires, in order that they might become well-pleasing to God, he transferred the consciousness of his sinfulness to the victim by the laying on of hands, even in the case of the burnt-offering. But this was not all: he also transferred the desire to walk before God in holiness and righteousness, which he could not do without the grace of God. This, and no more than this, is contained in the words, "that it may become well-pleasing to him, to make atonement for him." כּפּר with Seghol (Ges. 52), to expiate (from the Kal כּפר, which is not met with in Hebrew, the word in Gen 6:14 being merely a denom. verb, but which signifies texit in Arabic), is generally construed with על like verbs of covering, and in the laws of sacrifice with the person as the object ("for him," Lev 4:26, Lev 4:31, Lev 4:35; Lev 5:6, Lev 5:10., Lev 14:20, Lev 14:29, etc.; "for them," Lev 4:20; Lev 10:17; "for her," Lev 12:7; for a soul, Lev 17:11; Exo 30:15, cf. Num 8:12), and in the case of the sin-offerings with a second object governed either by על or מן (חטּאתו על עליו Lev 4:35; Lev 5:13, Lev 5:18, or מחטּאתו עליו Lev 4:26; Lev 5:6, etc., to expiate him over or on account of his sin); also, though not so frequently, with בּעד pers., ἐξιλάζεσθαι περὶ αὐτοῦ (Lev 16:6, Lev 16:24; Ch2 30:18), and חטּאת בּעד, ἐξιλάζεσθαι περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (Exo 32:30), and with ל pers., to permit expiation to be made (Deu 21:8; Eze 16:63); also with the accusative of the object, though in prose only in connection with the expiation of inanimate objects defiled by sin (Lev 16:33).
The expiation was always made or completed by the priest, as the sanctified mediator between Jehovah and the people, or, previous to the institution of the Aaronic priesthood, by Moses, the chosen mediator of the covenant, not by "Jehovah from whom the expiation proceeded," as Bhr supposes. For although all expiation has its ultimate foundation in the grace of God, which desires not the death of the sinner, but his redemption and salvation, and to this end has opened a way of salvation, and sanctified sacrifice as the means of expiation and mercy; it is not Jehovah who makes the expiation, but this is invariably the office or work of a mediator, who intervenes between the holy God and sinful man, and by means of expiation averts the wrath of God from the sinner, and brings the grace of God to bear upon him. It is only in cases where the word is used in the secondary sense of pardoning sin, or showing mercy, that God is mentioned as the subject (e.g., Deu 21:8; Psa 65:4; Psa 78:38; Jer 17:23).
(Note: The meaning "to make atonement" lies at the foundation in every passage in which the word is used metaphorically, such as Gen 32:21, where Jacob seeks to expiate the face of his angry brother, i.e., to appease his wrath, with a present; or Pro 16:14, "the wrath of a king is as messengers of death, but a wise man expiates it, i.e., softens, pacifies it;" Isa 47:11, "Mischief (destruction) will fall upon thee, thou will not be able to expiate it," that is to say, to avert the wrath of God, which has burst upon thee in the calamity, by means of an expiatory sacrifice. Even in Isa 28:18, "and your covenant with death is disannulled" (annihilated) (וכפּר), the use of the word כפר is to be explained from the fact that the guilt, which brought the judgment in its train, could be cancelled by a sacrificial expiation (cf. Isa 6:7 and Isa 22:14); so that there is no necessity to resort to a meaning which is altogether foreign to the word, viz., that of covering up by blotting over. When Hoffmann therefore maintains that there is no other way of explaining the use of the word in these passages, than by the supposition that, in addition to the verb כפר to cover, there was another denominative verb, founded upon the word כּפר a covering, or payment, the stumblingblock in the use of the word lies simply this, that Hoffmann has taken a one-sided view of the idea of expiation, through overlooking the fact, that the expiation had reference to the wrath of God which hung over the sinner and had to be averted from him by means of expiation, as is clearly proved by Exo 32:30 as compared with Exo 32:10 and Exo 32:22. The meaning of expiation which properly belongs to the verb כּפּר is not only retained in the nouns cippurim and capporeth, but lies at the root of the word copher, which is formed from the Kal, as we may clearly see from Exo 30:12-16, where the Israelites are ordered to pay a copher at the census, to expiate their souls, i.e., to cover their souls from the death which threatens the unholy, when he draws near without expiation to a holy God. Vid., Oehler in Herzog's Cycl.)
The medium of expiation in the case of the sacrifice was chiefly the blood of the sacrificial animal that was sprinkled upon the altar (Lev 17:11); in addition to which, the eating of the flesh of the sin-offering by the priests is also called bearing the iniquity of the congregation to make atonement for them (Lev 10:17). In other cases it was the intercession of Moses (Exo 32:30); also the fumigation with holy incense, which was a symbol of priestly intercession (Num 17:11). On one occasion it was the zeal of Phinehas, when he stabbed the Israelite with a spear for committing fornication with a Midianite (Num 25:8, Num 25:13). In the case of a murder committed by an unknown hand, it was the slaying of an animal in the place of the murderer who remained undiscovered (Deu 21:1-9); whereas in other cases blood-guiltiness (murder) could not be expiated in any other way than by the blood of the person by whom it had been shed (Num 35:33). In Isa 27:9, a divine judgment, by which the nation was punished, is so described, as serving to avert the complete destruction which threatened it. And lastly, it was in some cases a כּפר, such, for example, as the atonement-money paid at the numbering of the people (Exo 30:12.), and the payment made in the case referred to in Exo 21:30.
If, therefore, the idea of satisfaction unquestionably lay at the foundation of the atonement that was made, in all those cases in which it was effected by a penal judgment, or judicial poena; the intercession of the priest, or the fumigation which embodied it, cannot possibly be regarded as a satisfaction rendered to the justice of God, so that we cannot attribute the idea of satisfaction to every kind of sacrificial expiation. Still less can it be discerned in the slaying of the animal, when simply regarded as the shedding of blood. To this we may add, that in the laws for the sin-offering there is no reference at all to expiation; and in the case of the burnt-offering, the laying on of hands is described as the act by which it was to become well-pleasing to God, and to expiate the offerer. Now, if the laying on of hands was accompanied with a prayer, as the Jewish tradition affirms, and as we may most certainly infer from Deu 26:13, apart altogether from Lev 16:21, although no prayer is expressly enjoined; then in the case of the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, it is in this prayer, or the imposition of hands which symbolized it, and by which the offerer substituted the sacrifice for himself and penetrated it with his spirit, that we must seek for the condition upon which the well-pleased acceptance of the sacrifice on the part of Fog depended, and in consequence of which it became an atonement for him; in other words, was fitted to cover him in the presence of the holiness of God.
Lev 1:5-9
The laying on of hands was followed by the slaughtering (שׁחט, never המית to put to death), which was performed by the offerer himself in the case of the private sacrifices, and by the priests and Levites in that of the national and festal offerings (Ch2 29:22, Ch2 29:24, Ch2 29:34). The slaughtering took place "before Jehovah" (see Lev 1:3), or, according to the more precise account in Lev 1:11, on the side of the altar northward, for which the expression "before the door of the tabernacle" is sometimes used (Lev 3:2, Lev 3:8, Lev 3:13, etc.). בּקר בּן (a young ox) is applied to a calf (עגל) in Lev 9:2, and a mature young bull (פּר) in Lev 4:3, Lev 4:14. But the animal of one year old is called עגל in Lev 9:2, and the mature ox of seven years old is called פּר in Jdg 6:25. At the slaughtering the blood was caught by the priests (Ch2 29:22), and sprinkled upon the altar. When the sacrifices were very numerous, as at the yearly feasts, the Levites helped to catch the blood (Ch2 30:16); but the sprinkling upon the altar was always performed by the priests alone. In the case of the burnt-offerings, the blood was swung "against the altar round about," i.e., against all four sides (walls) of the altar (not "over the surface of the altar"); i.e., it was poured out of the vessel against the walls of the altar with a swinging motion. This was also done when peace-offerings (Lev 3:2, Lev 3:8, Lev 3:13; Lev 9:18) and trespass-offerings (Lev 7:2) were sacrificed; but it was not so with the sin-offering (see at Lev 4:5).
Lev 1:6
The offerer was then to flay the slaughtered animal, to cut it (נתּח generally rendered μελίζειν in the lxx) into its pieces, - i.e., to cut it up into the different pieces, into which an animal that has been killed is generally divided, namely, according to the separate joints, or "according to the bones" (Jdg 19:29), - that he might boil its flesh in pots (Eze 24:4, Eze 24:6). He was also to wash its intestines and the lower part of its legs (Lev 1:9). קרב, the inner part of the body, or the contents of the inner part of the body, signifies the viscera; not including those of the breast, however, such as the lungs, heart, and liver, to which the term is also applied in other cases (for in the case of the peace-offerings, when the fat which envelopes the intestines, the kidneys, and the liver-lobes was to be placed upon the altar, there is no washing spoken of), but the intestines of the abdomen or belly, such as the stomach and bowels, which would necessarily have to be thoroughly cleansed, even when they were about to be used as food. כּרעים, which is only found in the dual, and always in connection either with oxen and sheep, or with the springing legs of locusts (Lev 11:21), denotes the shin, or calf below the knee, or the leg from the knee down to the foot.
Lev 1:7-9
It was the duty of the sons of Aaron, i.e., of the priests, to offer the sacrifice upon the altar. To this end they were to "put fire upon the altar" (of course this only applies to the first burnt-offering presented after the erection of the altar, as the fire was to be constantly burning upon the altar after that, without being allowed to go out, Lev 6:6), and to lay "wood in order upon the fire" (ערך to lay in regular order), and then to "lay the parts, the head and the fat, in order upon the wood on the fire," and thus to cause the whole to ascend in smoke. פּדר, which is only used in connection with the burnt-offering (Lev 1:8, Lev 1:12, and Lev 8:20), signifies, according to the ancient versions (lxx στέαρ) and the rabbinical writers, the fat, probably those portions of fat which were separated from the entrails and taken out to wash. Bochart's explanation is adeps a carne sejunctus. The head and fat are specially mentioned along with the pieces of flesh, partly because they are both separated from the flesh when animals are slaughtered, and partly also to point out distinctly that the whole of the animal ("all," Lev 1:9) was to be burned upon the altar, with the exception of the skin, which was given to the officiating priest (Lev 7:8), and the contents of the intestines. הקטיר, to cause to ascend in smoke and steam (Exo 30:7), which is frequently construed with המּזבּחה towards the altar (ה local, so used as to include position in a place; vid., Lev 1:13, Lev 1:15, Lev 1:17; Lev 2:2, Lev 2:9, etc.), or with המּזבּח (Lev 6:8), or על־המּזבּח (Lev 9:13, Lev 9:17), was the technical expression for burning the sacrifice upon the altar, and showed that the intention was not simply to burn those portions of the sacrifice which were placed in the fire, i.e., to destroy, or turn them into ashes, but by this process of burning to cause the odour which was eliminated to ascend to heaven as the ethereal essence of the sacrifice, for a "firing of a sweet savour unto Jehovah." אשּׁה, firing ("an offering made by fire," Eng. Ver.), is the general expression used to denote the sacrifices, which ascended in fire upon the altar, whether animal or vegetable (Lev 2:2, Lev 2:11, Lev 2:16), and is also applied to the incense laid upon the shew-bread (Lev 24:7); and hence the shew-bread itself (Lev 24:7), and even those portions of the sacrifices which Jehovah assigned to the priests for them to eat (Deu 18:1 cf. Jos 13:14), came also to be included in the firings for Jehovah. The word does not occur out of the Pentateuch, except in Jos 13:14 and Sa1 2:28. In the laws of sacrifice it is generally associated with the expression, "a sweet savour unto Jehovah" (ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας: lxx): an anthropomorphic description of the divine satisfaction with the sacrifices offered, or the gracious acceptance of them on the part of God (see Gen 8:21), which is used in connection with all the sacrifices, even the expiatory or sin-offerings (Lev 4:31), and with the drink-offering also (Num 15:7, Num 15:10).