Leviticus 22:23

Either a bullock, or a lamb that hath anything superfluous, or lacking in its parts,.... That has either more members than it should have, as five feet, or two gristles in an ear, as Gersom says, or

But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you. No JFB commentary on these verses.

That mayest thou offer; either, 1. To the priest, who might, according to the rules given by God, either convert it to his own use, or sell it, and lay out the price of it upon the temple or sacrifices. But in this sense any of the other kinds, as blind, or broken, &c., might be offered, which yet are forbidden to be offered . Or rather, 2. To the Lord, as is expressed ,24, this being put down by way of opposition to those defects, , and by way of exception from the general rule, .

Leviticus 22:23 Either a bullock or a lamb that hath any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou offer [for] a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted.Ver. 23. That mayest thou offer.] Though it have some kind of defect, yet, in free will offerings, it might pass. This was to signify that our imperfect obedience after that we are once in Christ, is accepted by Christ, who is without all blame and blemish.

(23) Either a bullock or a lamb.—Better, And bullock and one of the flock.That hath any thing superfluous.—That is one member of the animal being more elongated or contracted than the other, being out of proportion. The same blemish also unfitted the priest for performing sacerdotal functions (see Leviticus 21:18). Or lacking in his parts.—This, according to the authorities during the second Temple, denotes contracted hoofs, or undivided hoofs, making them resemble those of an ass or horse. That mayest thou offer for a freewill offering.—Better, that thou mayest make a freewill offering. As Leviticus 22:18-20 most emphatically declare that an animal with any blemish whatsoever must not be offered “for any manner of freewill offering,” it is hardly conceivable that the lawgiver would contradict this enactment within the space of three verses, and say “that the animals with those serious organic defects enumerated in the verse before us, thou mayest offer for a freewill offering.” Hence, during the second Temple, the passage before us was interpreted to mean that the animals in question were only allowed to be consecrated for the maintenance and repair of the sanctuary, but not to be offered as a sacrifice on the altar. They were sold, or the offerer paid the value himself, and the money was applied to these sacred purposes. The opinion that a freewill offering was of less importance than a vow, and that therefore the lawgiver allows animals with the two kinds of defects here described to be offered for a freewill offering but not for a vow, is contrary to the regulations laid down in Leviticus 22:18-20, and is against the practice during the second Temple (see Leviticus 7:16). It is far more probable that the text is disarranged, and that it originally was, “that thou mayest not offer for a freewill offering, and for a vow it shall not be accepted.”

Verse 23. That hath anything superfluous or lacking] The term שרוע sarua signifies any thing extended beyond the usual size, and the term קלוט kalut signifies any thing unusually contracted; and both mean any monstrosity, whether in redundance or defect. Such things, it seems, might be offered for a freewill-offering, because that was not prescribed by the law; God left it to a man's piety and gratitude to offer such additional gifts as he could: what the law required was indispensably necessary, because it pointed out the Gospel economy; but he that made a vow to offer such a sacrifice as the law had not required, could of course bring an imperfect offering. Some contend that the last clause of this verse should be thus read: If thou offer it either for a freewill-offering, or for a vow, it shall not be accepted. It was the opinion of the Jews, and it appears to be correct, that none of these imperfect animals were ever offered on the altar; but the person who made the freewill-offering of such things as he had, sold the animal, and gave its price for the support of the sanctuary.

23. but for a vow] The three varieties included under the name Peace-Offering were, as has been noticed (see on Leviticus 7:11), (a) Thank-Offerings (here mentioned as a separate item in Leviticus 22:29, (b) Votive-Offerings, and (c) Freewill-Offerings. The first (see W.P.Paterson, HDB, Art. Sacrifice, p. 338) was offered in acknowledgment of benefits received, the second and third were combined with prayer for blessings hoped for. These two differed thus, that the Freewill-Offering was simply in support of the prayer, and was made in anticipation of the benefit asked. The vow was promised on fulfilment of the prayer, and thus, unlike the Freewill-Offering, need not be offered if the prayer remained unfulfilled. According to this v., gratitude for the answer was to be indicated by the greater stringency of the regulation as to the nature of the animal to be offered in acknowledgment of the mercy vouchsafed. For the general prohibition to offer a sacrifice that had a blemish, cp. the rebuke in Malachi 1:8; Malachi 1:13.

23. A freewill offering — Since this is a gift, and not a debt, an animal having a member too many or too few may be used. This is the significance of superfluous. See Leviticus 21:18, note.