Leviticus 5

Leviticus 5:1

Augustine of Hippo: “But if a soul should sin or hear the utterance of an oath, and he himself is a witness or sees or knows about it: if he does not make it known, he too will incur sin.” That is, “If he does not make it known, he will incur sin.” The addition of “and” is a common expression in the Scriptures. But this particular meaning, since it is obscure, seems to need an explanation. For it seems to say that a man sins when someone swears falsely in his hearing and he knows that that man is swearing falsely and remains silent. He knows this, if he was a witness to this matter about which an oath was taken, either having seen it or having known about it. That is, in some way he knows it. Either he saw it with his own eyes or the one who swears told him. For thus he could be aware of it. But between fear of this sin and fear of the treachery of men, there often arises no small temptation. For we can call someone back who is prepared to perjure himself by admonishing him or by preventing him from committing so grave a sin. If, however, he does not listen, and he swears in front of us about something that we know is false, a different question arises: should he be exposed—even if, once he is exposed, he comes into danger of death? But Scripture does not say here to whom this wrong should be made known—whether to the one to whom he swears, or to a priest or to someone who not only is unable to proceed against him by imposing a punishment but can even pray for him. It seems to me that one would free oneself even from the bond of sin if he reveals the fact to those who are able to help the perjurer rather than harm him, either by correcting him or by praying to God for him, if he himself uses the remedy of confession. — QUESTIONS ON Leviticus 1

Augustine of Hippo: If a person sins and hears the voice of the oath and she is a witness, or sees it, or knows it, if she does not declare it and is burdened with sin, that is, if she does not declare it, she is burdened with sin. The addition of “and” is a habitual way of expressing oneself from Scripture. But since the meaning is obscure, we have to expose it. It seems that the text means that a man commits a sin if, hearing that someone swears in false and knowing that he swears in false, he is silent. He knows, if he has witnessed the thing about which the oath is taken or if he saw it or knew it, that is, if he knew it in any way, or seeing it with his own eyes or if he told it himself. he made the oath. Well, he could know the thing in that way. Now, between the fear of this sin and the fear of discovering others there is often a non-small test. Because we can prevent the one who is willing to perjure from committing such a great sin, either by reprimanding him or by forbidding him. If he does not pay attention to us, and he swears in falsehood before us about something we know, it is a very difficult question to know if we have to give him away, if to incriminate him also incurs in danger of death. As the text does not say here who should be told, if it is the one to whom it is sworn or the priest or anyone who not only can not persecute him irrogiendo the torture, but can even pray for him, it seems to me that the The person is free even from the bond of sin if he tells those who can take advantage rather than harm the perjurer, or to correct him or to appease God for him, if he himself uses the medicine of confession. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 1 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 5:2

Augustine of Hippo: After mentioning this kind of sin, consisting of not denouncing the perjury of a person, the Scripture does not mandate to offer any sacrifice for that sin. And then he adds: Whoever touches anything impure, whether it be from a corpse, or from an impure animal captured by a wild beast, and from the things that have died of impure abominations, the corpse of unclean hams, or touch anything of the human impurities, of any impurity of the man with whom it is stained, if he touches it, and does not realize it, but later he realizes and becomes guilty. The sacrifice that had to be done for this kind of sin is not mentioned here either, but the text adds the following: Whoever makes an oath distinguishing with his lips doing evil or doing good according to all the things that man distinguishes swear, and do not notice and know and commit one of these sins, and confess the sin with the one who sinned against him (Leviticus 5,4). United and explained all these things without any mention of sacrifice, the text adds the following: And will offer to the Lord for these sins that he did, for the sin he committed, a female, a sheep of the sheep or a goat of the goats by the sin. The priest will make the atonement for him, for his sin, and the sin will be forgiven (Leviticus 5,6). What does it mean that for a hidden perjury of a person and for touching a corpse or something impure, the Scripture does not mention any sacrifice and, instead, for the sin of making a false oath involuntarily send to sacrifice a sheep or a goat? Should we think that this sacrifice must be offered for all the sins mentioned above? In fact, the author preferred to list all the sins first and then say with what sacrifice they had to expiate. But in all the genera of sins mentioned above there is something expressed in a rather obscure way, due to the expressions that Scripture uses, as, for example, when it says: the corpse of the juices. The Greeks call kténe what many of our translators call increments (jumentos). Now, this word in the usual Latin usage designates those animals that are usually used mostly as pack animals, such as horses, donkeys, mules, camels, and other animals like that. On the other hand, what the Greeks call kténe has such a broad meaning that it can be understood under this name to all or almost all the cattle. And therefore, in the Greek text was added with a new kind of expression, as a pleonasm, the word impure, when mentioning the juices, because there are also pure cattle, which are called kténe. On the other hand, the animals that the habitual Latin language denominates jumentos, according to the distinction that the law does, are only impure. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 2 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 5:4

Augustine of Hippo: In relation to the text quoted above: Whoever makes an oath distinguishing with his lips doing evil or doing good, can one wonder what distinguishing (distinguuens) means, because this word appears many times in Scripture. Thus, for example: I will fulfill my vows, which distinguished my lips (Sal 65,13.14). In Ezekiel it is also said: If I say to the wicked: “You will die without remedy”, and you did not distinguish or speak. (Ez 3,18) And in another place it says: If a woman, being in her father’s house, made a vow, distinguishing with his lips against his soul (Numbers 30,4). This distinction seems to be a definition by which one thing is separated from the others, which are not supported by the single word. Those words must be understood as if it had been said: The person who makes an oath, defining with his lips doing wrong or doing good according to all the things that man defines when he swears and does not realize -that is, if he swears do one thing without knowing what to do or do not have to do it-and know and commit one of these sins -or because he swore before he knew it or because he did what he swore and knew afterwards that it was not necessary to do it or had to swear - and confess the sin with which he sinned - that is, the sin he committed, since it is a phrase of Scripture. What is said next: against him, what does it mean but confessed the sin against himself, that is, confessing the sin he accused himself? And he will offer to the Lord for these sins that he made, for the sin he committed, a female, sheep of the sheep - use the usual expression female sheep, as if there could be a non-female sheep - or a goat of the goats. As a sheep sheep says, it also says a goat of the goats, as if there could be a sheep that was not of the sheep or a goat that was not of the goats. They raise a problem, a problem that is not even small, the words that the text repeats frequently: after this it warns and commits a crime, as if to say that sin is committed when it is known. Is it not rather that, if you do not know, you can not offer satisfaction? But the text does not say: after this he warns and repents. What does it mean, therefore, after this is warned by j delinque? Is it about you committing a crime after warning? So purification would be applied for crime if man had knowingly done what he should not have done. But he did not say this before. And so it seems that the Lord punishes the sins committed by those who do not realize and, therefore, those who do not want to sin. The Scripture has perhaps used the word delinque to mean “knew it is a crime.” Or has it been said in reverse order-since Scripture uses this kind of expression-what was said in correct order in other similar places? Because, being written so many times in other places in this way: And commits and warns, only here, as I said before, it is said first, in reverse order, it warns, and then it is said and offended. Following his order, it could only be said thus: Whoever touches anything impure, whether of a corpse, or of an impure corpse captured by a beast, or of the things that have died of impure abominations, the corpse of impure donkeys or touch anything of the human impurities, of any impurity of the man with whom it is stained, if he touches it, and does not realize and commit a crime, but then he realizes (Cf Leviticus 5,2.3). — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 3 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 5:7

Clement of Alexandria: Through Moses God orders that two young birds, a pair of pigeons or of turtledoves, be offered for any sin. This means that the sinlessness of such gentle birds and their guilelessness and forgetfulness of injury is very acceptable to God. So he is instructing us to offer a sacrifice bearing the character of that against which we have offended. The plight of the poor doves, moreover, will instill into us a beginning of abhorrence for sin. — The Instructor Book 1

Origen of Alexandria: Not without cause is a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons, taken in the sacrifices: for they are of equal worth, and it is never said separately, a pair only of pigeons, but a pair of turtledoves, and two young pigeons. The dove is the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit, when he speaks of great and more hidden mysteries, which many cannot receive, is signified by the name of the turtledove — that is, of that bird which dwells always on the ridges of the mountains and on the tops of the trees; but in the valleys, and in the things which reach even to men, the dove is taken. — HOMILIES ON THE SONG OF SONGS, HOMILY 2

Augustine of Hippo: But if his hand does not have enough to give a sheep, he will offer to the Lord for the sin he committed two turtledoves or two pigeon pigeons, one for sin, and another for a burnt offering. Here the question about which we had doubts before is clarified. It seems that it is said: One for sin and another for a burnt offering, precisely because no sacrifice for sin was offered if it was not done with a burnt offering. Moreover, when speaking in particular about holocausts, the text mentions turtledoves, but does not say that two were offered. Now, on the other hand, he says that two should be offered justly, because the sacrifice for sin was not offered without the holocaust. Therefore, in relation to what was said before: And he will place it on the burnt offering (Leviticus 4,35), there is no doubt that first the holocaust was made, then he put on that. But now it is said differently about birds: first you have to offer one bird for sin and then another as a burnt offering. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 4 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Augustine of Hippo: The question of whether the following words are present is also presented: If your hand does not have enough to offer a sheep, it must always be taken in the sense that the person must offer a pair of turtle doves or a couple of pigeon chicks, and, if I could not even do this, I would offer a certain amount of flour. Because, if it is understood that it is always lawful to do this, it can not be said in any way that the priest does not have a bull or that the whole assembly or the chief does not have a goat or a sheep. And if so, what need was there to say after the hidden perjury of a person or the act of touching something impure, and perjury made out of ignorance, were expiated with the sacrifice of a sheep and a goat, while Are those same sacrifices also prescribed in that general indication of sin to which these sins also belong? But if these sins are distinguished here, because it was lawful to offer turtledoves or pigeons for them, or even fine flour if one did not have those other things, and there, where nothing is said, it was not lawful, then it does not seem that helped the poor, because there could be many sins not explicitly indicated that would refer to that general indication, according to which the poor would be overwhelmed if it were only lawful to offer a goat of the goats and a sheep of the sheep and those birds and the flower of flour. Unless one says that these excepted and expressly mentioned sins are distinguished from those that were mentioned in a general manner precisely because here we speak of a Codera and there of a sheep, so that the age of the animals presents some difference, with so that it is understood that the poor have been helped with total equity, since, if they did not have any quadruped animal, they could offer the aforementioned birds or the flour for the sins committed by ignorance. But if the problem arises of knowing why, if before it encompassed in a general way all the sins of ignorance and did not distinguish sacrifices for the difference of sins, something that was not established, but by the difference of the people, then there would be I also wanted to distinguish the sins and send the different sacrifices according to their difference, as if not all were included in that generalization, I must say that it is necessary to understand that the distinction was made later. And so the sins that remain, except those that the Lord mentioned expressly and nominally, we should think that they are included in that generalization. This mode of expression is not found anywhere else. But in the Sacred Scriptures there is something similar, when the Apostle says: Every sin committed by man is outside his body. It gives the impression that no sin has been omitted here, because it is said: All sin committed by man. But afterwards she exempted fornication, when she added: But he who fornicates sins against his own body (1 Corinthians 6,18). This, according to our way of speaking, should be expressed as follows: Every sin committed by man, except fornication, remains outside his body; but whoever fornicates, sins against his own body. The same happens here: The author spoke first in a general way, referring to all the sins of ignorance and mentioning the sacrifices with which they should atone; then he exempted those sins that, mentioned in an express and distinct way, needed special sacrifices to be atoned for. And so, except for these sins, all the others that were, would enter into that generalization. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 8 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 5:15

Augustine of Hippo: A person if he is hidden by oblivion. This text must be understood as follows: if something were done for oblivion in such a way that it was concealed from him, referring to the man (eum), or to her, referring to the person. Anima (soul) here means “man” (or “person”). — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 5 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Augustine of Hippo: And unintentionally sins against the holy things of the Lord. This kind of sin seems to be put here in a dark way. But it is explained below, when the text says, after having alluded to the sacrifice of a ram: It will restore what is defrauded and add a fifth more (Leviticus 5,16). Therefore, sin by forgetfulness against holy things means there “to usurp by forgetfulness something” that is due to holy things, whether to the priests, or to the oblations of the firstfruits or something similar. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 6 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 5:17

Augustine of Hippo: Whoever sins and does something that should not be done against any precept of the Lord and does not realize and become guilty and accept his sin, and offer a ram of the flock, without defect, according to the price of money, as a sacrifice for the crime to the priest; and the priest will make atonement for him because of the mistake he made without realizing it and he will be forgiven, because, indeed, he committed a crime before the Lord. Except for the unusual density of expressions, which must already be totally familiar by the continuous repetition of them, the whole meaning of this passage is obscure, because we can ask how this kind of sin is distinguished from those that the author mentioned before a general way The sense seems to require that for a certain kind of sins some kind of sacrifices must be used to atone for them. But what I have just said does not specifically express sin, but seems to remain in that generality, according to which, speaking before the subject, the Lord established that a bull be offered as a sacrifice for the priest, and a bull also for all the assembly, a goat for the chief, and a goat or, if you prefer, a sheep, female cattle, for any soul, that is, for any man (Cf Leviticus 4). Afterwards, some kinds of sins were excepted, and to expressly say what sacrifice had to be offered for each of the sins, such as, for example, the perjury, heard and hidden, of someone; touching a corpse or an impure thing; the false oath by inadvertence, by which it was necessary to offer a sheep of the sheep, or a goat of the goats, or a pair of turtledoves, or a pair of pigeon pigeons, or the tenth part of a measure of flour of flour . For the one who had sinned, usurping by forgetfulness something of the holy things, the Lord ordered to offer a ram and the restitution of the thing, adding a fifth more. Now, without expressly saying the kind of sin, it is added in a general way: Whoever sins and does something that should not be done against any precept of the Lord - in that general statement it said: Something that will not be done against the precepts of the Lord -And do not realize and become guilty, that is, sin by ignorance without wanting to, offers to offer a ram, not a goat or a female sheep, as he had previously ordered, when speaking of sins in that general way. What does this mixture then mean? When saying here: Because he committed a crime before the Lord, the expression before the Lord may mean the sin that is committed in the things that are done before the Lord, that is, in the things through which the Lord is worshiped in the Lord. tabernacle. About this something had already been said before, when he affirmed: He sinned against the holy things, (Leviticus 5,15) and we interpreted it in the sense that he “usurped something of the holy things”, since the Lord had also ordered to restore it. Therefore, in these things one can not sin only in this way, usurping something by forgetfulness, but one can sin in addition to many other ways, through ignorance in the things that are used in the service of God. The author wanted to mention this kind of sins in a general way, and that is why, both here and here, the Lord commanded to offer a ram. The Scriptures are replete with expressions like this: before the Lord, and they mean nothing more than what is offered to the Lord, such as sacrifice or firstfruits or some service in sacred things. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 7 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)