Exodus 22
PAT2G1 or ass, or sheep.) Though these be only mentioned, yet the law reaches to all cattle whatsoever. Wliich another challengeth to himself. There is great variety in the translation of these words, as Mr. Selden shews; (lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 12.) but, according to ours, the meaning is, when a man affirms that he either deposited such things with his neighbour, or lent them to him, or that he took them, (as R. Levi Barzelonita interprets it; Prsecept. liv.) both parties were to be brought before the judge; that he might examine where the right lay. He shall pay double unto his neighbour.] i. e. He who pretended to hav* deposited the goods (suppose) was to pay double if he brought an unjust action against his neighbour; or he with whom the goods were deposited was to pay it, if it appeared he had dealt fraudulently: but if it were found that the goods were lost by mere chance, he was not bound to pay any thing. Maimonides explains it thus, according to the opinion of the Talmudists (as Mr. Selden observes in the place now mentioned); when a man brings an action against another about such things as arc here mentioned, and the defendant confesses part of the charge, but denies the rest; he was to restore as far as he confessed; but for the other which he did not confess, he was to be put upon his oath. Or, if he denied the whole, and he that brought the action had but one witness against him, he was to purge himself by an oath; for, by the law) no man was compelled to clear himself by an oath but in three cases, of which this was one, when a man was guilty by one witness. 2G2 [chai\ xxir. and take her to be his wife, but only, endow her to be his wife: that is, give her such a dowry that she might be his lawful wife. So the same Hebrew doctors understand it; who will not have it to be a command that he should marry her (though that was best), but only that he should make satisfaction for taking away her virginity; which was by paying so much, in the nature of a dowry, as would render her fit to bo his wife, if both of them could agree. Yet so, that if either he, or she, or her father refused (for it was in the power of any of these, as they say, to hinder the marriage), he paid this mulct as the dowry of a virgin to her father. (See Seldcn’sUxor. Iiebr. lib. i. cap. 16.) There is another law of this nature, (Deut. xxii. 28, 20.) but it speaks of a virgin deflowered by force: of which see there. 2G3 now. Of which he treats more largely Deut. xvii. 2, 3, &c. See there. 23.) and besides, the Hebrew doctors say, he was to bo beaten, by order of the court of judgment. For lam gracioits.] And would havo you like myself,
Exodus 22:1
JLF a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and.kill it, or sell it. Before the theft was discovered to be done by him. He shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.] There is a smaller satisfaction required. in other things, (ver. 9.) and here is also a disproportion observable between the stealing of an ox and of a sheep. The reason of both was this; that money, goods, garments, jewels, which men keep in their houses within towns and cities, are better guarded, and not so easily stolen as cattle in the field: and of cattle in the field, an ox was more easy to be stolen than a sheep: for sheep feeding in flocks may be all in view of the shepherd; but oxen, feeding scattered one from another, are not so easily observed and kept by the neatherd. Thus Maimonides, More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 41. But the true reason of the difference between an ox and a sheep seems to be, that an ox was of greater value, and likewise useful to more purposes in husbandry, (as ploughing, carrying in, and treading out the corn, &c.) which made the punishment of stealing an ox greater than that of stealing a sheep. Yet there was a difference between a thief who came and confessed his sin of his own accord, and him that stood out till he was apprehended and convicted of it: for, in the former case, Moses seems to require only the restitution of that which was stolen, with the addition of a fifth part of the value, and a sacrifice, (Lev. vi. 4, 5.) All this is far more equal than Plato’s constitutions, which for all thefts require the same punishment, which was paying double; lavrz fxiya lavrz amxpbv fcXtirrrr) tiq, uo tig vo/ioc kci<t0w, &c. (lib. ix. de Legibus, p. 857.)
Exodus 22:2
If a man be found breaking up. Some translate it, if a man be found with a digging instrument; or, it may signify any sort of weapon: yet he was to be taken in the very act of breaking up or digging. And be smitten that he die,&c] The master of the house might kill the robber in this case; because it might well be (.bought he intended to kill him rather than lose his booty. The law of the twelve tables allowed this, as A. Gcllius relates, (lib. xi. cap. 18.) F Duodecim tabulae nocturnum furcm quoquo modo, diurnum autcm, si so telo defenderit/ intcrfici impune voluerunt." It was one of Plato’s laws, also, that if a thief entered a man’s house in the night he might innocently kill him: Nuxxwp
Exodus 22:3
If the sun be risen, &c. When they might possibly know who he was; and it might be prosumed he intended only to steal, not to kill; then to kill him was to be accounted murder. He shall be sold for his theft.] For six years. But the Hebrew doctors have many mollifications of this law: for they say awoman was not to bo sold; nor a man, but for the principal sum. For double, or four or fivefold, he was not to*be sold; but have credit for it, till he was able to pay. And he was not to be sold who robbed a Samaritan; nor if he had stolen^ less than he was worth when sold, &c. with many other, which so mitigate, that they almost abrogate it. But the law of the twelve tables thought it reason, a thief should be delivered to him whom he robbed to be his slave, as A. Gellius tells us, lib. xx. cap. 1. (See Bochart. Hierozoic. par. i. lib. ii. cap. 40.) •
Exodus 22:4
Jf it be certainly found in his hand alive, &c. There was a great difference between killing, or selling, after the stealth; and having these cattle found alive with him. In the former case he was punished four or fivefold, (ver. 1.) but in this only double. Because the former concealed his theft with more industry, and left less hope of discovery and restitution than in the latter, as Bochart thero observes. Where he also takes notice of the like law at’ Athens, mentioned by Demosthenes and by A. Gellius, (lib. xi. cap. 18.) But the Hebrews here also have their exceptions; and mil not have this extended to women, children, and servants. He shall restore double.] In case he did not confess the fact himself, but was otherwise found out. For if he did accuse himself, and had neither sold nor killed that which he stole, he was not to restore double. He that stole from another thief was not bound, as Maimonides thinks, to restore double. But in case a thief killed what he had stolen, and after that consecrated it to God, he was obliged notwithstanding to restore fourfold: though if he consecrated it before he killed or sold it, only to restore double. For though the sanctification of a thing, after the sin was committed, did not take away the guilt: yet before he aggravated his fault by killing or selling what he stole, the sanctification lessened the punishment. (See L’Empercur in Bava kama, cap. 7. sect. 1, 2.)
Exodus 22:5
If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten. This our rabbins, saith It. Levi of Barcelona, understand concerning the damage done by beasts eating another man’s grass or corn, &e. Arid shall put in his. beast.] This they understand of the damage that may be done by their feet, in treading down the tender grass or corn. Of the best of his field, and of the best of his vineyard, shall he make restitution.] What is determined in this case, the Jews extend to all other: that men should make satisfaction for the wrong done to their neighbours in any kind, with the best of what they possessed of that kind. So the Misna in Bava kama, cap. 1. sect. 1. and Abarbinel on this place, damages are paid out of the best. Which made men very careful in looking after their beasts, that they did no hurt in their neighbours’ ground. For which Plato orders only such satisfaction to be made as Ac’Aypovofiot should judge meet, (lib. viii. de Lcgibdfe, p. 843.) But the Jews were so scrupulous in this matter, that, to prevent the damage one man might do another, they made a constitution that no man should keep goats, or rabbits, or any suchlike small creatures, near the corn-fields, or vineyards, or olive-yards of his neighbour; no, nor in nny parts of the land of Israel, (as the Misna hath it in the Bava kama, cap, 7. sect. 7.) but in Syria, or in the deserts of their own land. This the Talmudists carry so far, as to urge it to inept superstition; as L’Ernpereur observes on that place. * Ver. G. If fire break out, &e.] The Hebrew word properly imports that which breaks out of itself (as B. Levi Barzelonita observes), so that the meaning of this law is, that though a man kindle a fire within his own bounds, Vid it spread further, to the damage of his neighbour, he shall be guilty, though he had no hand in putting the fire to the stacks of corn which were burnt by it; because he should have looked better after it when ho had kindled it. For every man, saith he, is bound to watch the fire that he kindles, lest it do mischief; it being its nature to break out, and catch hold of any thing that is near it.’ And therefore Plato ordains (in the place mentioned upon the former verse) that tav irvptvwv rqv vkyv fir) &tvXaj3T)£y rwv tov ydrovoc, &c. if a man set fire to any combustible matter, and do not takecarehis neighbour receive no harm by it, he shall pay such damages as the magistrates judge just. But here the Jewish lawyers consider, at what distance the fire was kindled; and resolve, that if there was a fence of four cubits high, or a public highway, or a river between the fire and the field, or stack of corn that was burnt, the man that kindled it was free. (See Bava kama, cap. G. sect. 4, 5. and L’Empereur in his Annotations there.)
Exodus 22:7
If a man shall deliver nnto his neighbour money, or stuff to keep, &c. The equity of the law contained in this and the following verse, is very well explained by Maimonides, par. iii. cap. 42. More Nevoch. He that takes a neighbour’s goods or money to keep for nothing, and hath no profit thereby, doth a kindness to his neighbour, and therefore is not to bear the loss of them; which must fall » upon the owner himself. But he that desires to be the keeper of his goods, and receives a benefit by the use of them, or is paid for his care, must make them good if they be stolen. Or if the owner and the keeper equally partake of the profit, they must equally bear the loss. R. Levi Barzelonita interprets this place of that which a man takes into his custody chinnam (as his word is), gratis, as we speak, without any reward for his care in keeping it.
Exodus 22:8
Shall be brought to the judges. The principal judges were called Elohim, gods. And there were to be three of them at least; who were to examine upon oath (ver. 11.) and endeavour to find out tho truth. (See Selden, lib. ii. de Syned. cap. 5. p. 232.) To see.] i. e. Find out. liliether he have put his hand vnto his neighbour’s goods.] Or, whether through negligence he suffered them to be stolen. In which he was bound to make them good, as Maimonides saith, in the place beforementioned; who will have the name of Elohim originally to belong to judges; and from thence to be translated to God, the Judge above all, (par. ii. cap. 2.) But of this see xx. 2.
Exodus 22:9
For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox,
Exodus 22:10
If a man deliver unto Ms neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast to keep, &c. If he lend any of these things to his neighbour, upon certain considerations, or let them for hire; and his neighbour affirms that they died, or were hurt, or driven away by enemies who carried them captive; but there was no witness of any of these allegations; then the cause was to be brought before the judge to find out the truth, in the manner following:
Exodus 22:11
Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, &c. If there was no other way to discover the truth, then he to whom tbcy were delivered, was to purge himself by an oath that he had not killed the beast, nor done any thing to hurt it; and the owner was to trouble him no further: nor was he bound to make any satisfaction, provided he had used these goods according to the agreement between them; for if he had employed them contrary to their contract, then he was bound to make them good to the owner of whom they w r ere borrowed or hired. If he refused to take the oath, he was pronounced guilty; and restitution was ordered to be made out of his goods. But there were some temperaments of this law; for every man was not admitted to purge himself by an oath. For instance; he that was of so bad a reputation, that they had a suspicion he would not stick to perjure himself, was not admitted to be abjured; no, though he that brought the action required it, &c. (See Mr. Selden, lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 12. p. 520.)
Exodus 22:12
And if it be stolen from him. Through his negligence who was entrusted with it. lie shall make restitution to the owner thereof.] Because he was bound to have looked better after it; by receiving wages for his care and pains in keeping it (as some interpret), or engaging to make it good, if he did not take the same care of it as if it had been his own.
Exodus 22:13
If it were torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, &c. If he could produce any part of it, as an evidence that it was torn, and he endeavoured to rescue it, he was not to make it good. But here the Hebrew doctors make many exceptions: for they would have him make good what was torn by one wolf alone; because they think he might have been able to defend the cattle against one, though not against many. If, also, he put the oxen or sheep into a pasture, wont to be infested with wild beasts or thieves; or, if he did not call in the help of his neighbours, &c. in these, and such-like cases, he was to make good that wliich was torn, as Maimonides reports their judgment (See Bochart. Hierozoic. par. i. lib. ii. cap. 44.)
Exodus 22:14
If a man borrow aught of his neighbour, and it be hurt or die. This the Hebrew doctors think concerns such things as were lent to another out of kindness, without any consideration for the use of them. About which, if there’ arose any controversy, by reason, of some maim that it received, or its death, it was to be determined by the rule following. Tlie owner tJiereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.] These words, and those in the beginning of the fifteenth verse (but if the owner be with it, he shall not make it good), seem to signify, that if the owner was with the thing that was lent, at the time of its hurt or death, it was to be presumed he would do his best to preserve it, and see it was not ill used, and so must bear the loss: but if he was not present at that time, then the contrary was presumed, that the borrower was in fault, and therefore bound to make it good. Which, though it -may seem bard, was but necessary -to make men careful, aud do their best to preserve what was lent them in pure kindness. R. Levi, of Barcelona, (Prascept. lvi.) interprets it quite another way, in this manner: that if the owner was with it at the time it was borrowed, though not present at the time of its hurt or death, the borrower was free; but if the owner was present at the time, of the hurt or death, but not at the time of lending, he was bound to make it good. For " the matter (saith he) depends upon the beginning of it."
Exodus 22:15
If it be a hired thing, it came for his hire. Some make the Hebrew word sachir (which we translate hired thing) to relate unto the person; if he be a mercenary; i. c. the man who lends agrees to let the borrower have it at a certain price, &c. But this is the same, in effect, with the sense of our translation, which makes this word relate to the thing itself: which, if it were borrowed with a condition to pay so much for the use of it as the lender demanded, then the man who hired it was not bound to make it good, whether the owner were present or not, w r hen it was hurt, or died. But the owner was to run the hazard, because of the hire which he received for the use of the thing.
Exodus 22:16
If a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her. Whosoever lay with such a maid in the city was thought to have been an enlicer only (unless witnesses came and proved that he forced her), because it might bo well supposed her voice would have been heard, if she had cried out upon the force in the city. But if he lay with her in the field, where nobody could hear, it was presumed to be a rape. Thus Maimonides and other Hebrew doctors. He shall surely endow her to be Ids wife.’] This law doth not say, as the old translation hath it, he shall endow her,
Exodus 22:17
If her father utterly refuse to give her xintohimJ. Here is meution made only of the father; not of the man that deflowered her: who, one would think, should have been bound to marry her, if she and her father pleased. And SO Josephus, 6 <p$tlpag napSivov, &C. aitTog ya/tufrw. But if the father of the damsel did not like to give her to him, he was to pay as here is directed. He shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.] That is, saith Josephus, fifty shekels, r*)v rifxi)v rye vfipiwg, as a satisfaction for her reproach, (lib.iv. Archseol. cap. 8.)
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. This law about witches follows the other about virgins; because witches, among other practices, help by evil arts to allure and entice silly virgins to consent to men’s solicitations, Epiphanius reports from one that saw it such a magical operation used by a Jew to procure the love of a Christian woman, who was preserved from the Svvafnc (papjiaicdas, power of his witchcraft, by the seal of Christ (as he calls the sign of the cross), wherewith she fortified herself, at the first attempt made upon her, (Haeres. xxx. n.7, 8.) But such wicked wretches did a world of other mischief, and therefore were to be put to death, whether they were men or women. The Scripture, indeed, mentions a witch only, (saith the Gpmara of the Sanhedrin, cap. 7. n. 10.) because, for the most part, they were women w r ho were addicted to magic. So Maimonides also, because the greater part of evil works are performed by women; therefore the law saith, thou shalt not r suffer Mechasshepha, a witch, to live; (par. iii. cap. 37, More Nevochim.) Where he discourses of the sorts of witchcraft: and in general affirms, that there were no magical w r orks performed without respect to the stars. For such people held that every plant had its star, and so had every animal, and all metals. For example; they said, " Pluck such a leaf, or such an herb, when the sun, or any other planet, is in such a place; let such a metal be melted under such a constellation, or such a constitution of the moon; and then say such and such w r ords, and let a fume be made with such herbs or leaves, and that in such and such a form, and then this or that will follow. This was their doctrine, and such works as these were the peculiar worship of the stars, who were delighted, they imagine^, with such actions, words, or fumes, and for the sake of them would do whatsoever was desired." All this, ho saith, he took out of their books then extant; from which he concludes, that the scope of the law being,.that all idolatry should be taken out of the world, jind that no virtue should be ascribed to any star of doing good or hurt to men (which opinion led men to their worship), it necessarily followed t 1 at all witches and ivizards should be put to death, because, they were idolaters; though after a peculiar and different way from that wherein tho vulgar worshipped idols. And he thinks that a witch is rather mentioned than a wizard (though both intended), because men are naturally more tender towards the female sex, and apt to favour them: and, therefore, it is as if Moses had said, Thou shall Kill even a woman that is guilty of this crime. But afterwards (Lev. xx. 27.) he commands both men and women to be stoned. Others of the Hebrew doctors (particularly R. Levi Barzclonita) give this reason why witches were not to live, " Because they directly thwarted God most blessed, who made all things when he created them for such and such purposes; which they perverted, and, by devices of their own, made to serve other ends which God never designed:" (Praicept. lxii.) but this they could not do without the help of evil spirits; and therefore their crime consisted in entering into a familiarity and a league with them, whose assistance upon such occasions they invoked: which was, in effect, a renouncing of God. This w T as an impiety which had overspread the whole world, especially the eastern parts of it. And as for the Komans, w r e find a law, as old as the twelve tables, against witchcraft; " apud nos in duodecim tabulis cavetur, ne quis alienos fructus excantassit," as we read in Seneca, (lib. iv. Nat. Quaest. cap. 7.) where he mentions the like law among the Athenians. For the Greeks were extremely addicted to. this, especially in Thessaly. Of which none, that I have read, spake so plainly as Plato, in his eleventh book of Laws, p. 932, 933. where he orders punishments not only for those who destroyed others by portions, but for those who pretended to be able to revenge themselves on others, ij jiayyavz iaiq re rial Kal Innate teal KaTaSlazai Xcyofiivatc, " either by certain enchantments, or by charms, or by those spells which are called ties, or knots. Concerning w f hich, he acknowledges, it is hard to know any thing, or to persuade others there is nothing in them. For if a man see any w r here, icijpiva juju/j/ttara 7nTr\a<jfi£va, &c. waxen resemblances, made and set either at their doors, or in the turning of’the ways, or at the tombs of their ancestors; none can prevail with him to neglect these things, because he knows not w T hat efficacy is in them." And therefore he would have even such people, who used these sorts of witchcrafts, to be put to death, if they were professors of any sort of knowledge (as Mavr«c xal TtpaToaKoiroi), but if they w r ere simple people, he leaves the judges to punish them as they found reason.
Exodus 22:19
Wliosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be pit to death. This is so infamous a sin, and such a dishonour to nature, and the Author of nature (as Conr. Pellicanus well glosses), that it was not fit such a person should live upon the face of the earth, but die without mercy. See Lev. xviii. 23. xx. 15, 16. where this is more largely handled.
Exodus 22:20
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Sacrifice being the principal act of worship in those days, includes in it all other acts of worship and Divine service, which they were required to pay to the Lord alone (xx. 2, 3, &c); but the punishment of doing otherwise was not enacted till
Exodus 22:21
lliou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him. Here are two distinct commands. The first of which [not to vex a stranger] the Hebrews will have to consist in not upbraiding him with his former state of heathenism, nor giving him any opprobrious words: as saying, Remember what thou wast; or what thy father did. And this was neither to be done to a proselyte of justice, nor to a proselyte of the gate, as far as Mr. Selden could judge of their opinion herein, (lib.ii. de Jure N. et G. cap. 4.) The second [not to oppress hhn] consisted in not using him hardly in their dealings with him, by making him pay, for instance, for any thing more than it was worth. Which, the same Mr. Selden (lib. vi. cap. 5. p. G90.) thinks, the Hebrews were of opinion belonged only to their usage of proselytes of justice, who were perfectly in their communion. But this is very unreasonable: for (as R. Levi Barzelonita himself observes), by thus treating any proselyte, they might endanger their return to paganism again, out of indignation to be so despised; and much more when they saw they were wronged. Which God took care they should not be, because they were more helpless than other men, and had fewer friends. Which is the reason that this precept (as the Jews themselves have computed) is inculcated in one-and-twenty places. (See particularly xxiii. 9. Lev. xix. 33.) For ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.] There could not be a more powerful reason to move them to treat strangers kindly, than the remembrance of their own oppressions in Egypt, from which they were delivered by the mere mercy of God, which they ought to imitate.
Exodus 22:22
Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. Give them no trouble either in word or deed, as the same R. Levi interprets it (Praecept. lxv.); but in all their commerce with them, in buying, selling, or any other intercourse, treat them not only civilly, but kindly and* benignly. And the -reason of the precept, saith he, is the same with the former; because widows and orphans have few or none to protect them, or plead their cause; and therefore the law took care of them, as if their husbands and parents were yet alive. *
Exodus 22:23
If thou afflict them in any ivise. By giving them ill language, or by insulting over them, or destroying their goods: much more if any man smote them, he was liable •to the judgment of God, as Nachmanides interprets it. • And they cry at all unto me.] A child, saith the same R. Levi, cries to his father, and a wife to her husband: but the widow and the fatherless cry unto me, and I will hear them, for I am merciful. ■ I will surely hear them.] Punish you for your ill usage of them, as it follows in the next verse.
Exodus 22:26
If thou at all take thy neighbour’s raiment. His coverlid, as Ave speak, or bed-clothes. For it is plain, by what follows, he speaks of that which was to keep him from the cold in the night.: To pledge.] As a security for the payment of the money which he lent him. Thou shalt deliver it to him by that the sun goeth down.] This shews that he speaks of a poor man; which is more fullydeclared, Deut. xxiv. 12, 13.. •
Exodus 22:27
For that is his covering only, &c. It was contrary to humanity, to keep from him the only thing he had. to keep him warm in his bed; for it was in effect to kill him. And it shall come to pass, tvhen he crieth unto me, that I will hear him.] Punish thee for thy barbarous cruelty, (ver,
Exodus 22:28
Thou shall no t revile Ihe gods. i.e. The judges, as no doubt it is to be interpreted. (See Mr. Scldcn, lib. ii. do Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 13. p. 268.) And the Hebrew doctors give this reason for it; because it tends to terrify them from doing justice, and exposes them to the contempt and hatred of the people; whom it also inclines to sedition. But many of them (see him, cap. i. p. 9.) will have another precept contained in this, that they blaspheme not tho name of the Most High. Some few also (among whom is Philo) fancy it to be a command not to revile the gods that other people worship, though they be false ones. And so Julian tho apostate took it; who is confuted by St. Cy-’ ril, as Mr. Selden there observes. Nor curse Ihe ruler of thy people.] That is, either tho prince of Israel, or the president of the gre&t Sanhedrin. So R. Levi Barzelonita, (Preecept. lxxvii.) The intention of the Scripture is to admonish us of our duty to him, who is the prince of the empire of Israel; with respect both to tho dominion of the kingdom, and of the law (as his words are), it being a great crime to speak evil of him, by whoso care all differences were composed, &c. If any man was guilty of this crime, he was to be scourged three times: and if he wero tho son of a prince, he had four scotirgings. And that very justly; for heathens themselves reckoned this among the greatest offences. It was one of the laws of Charondas (^s Hen. Stephanus observes in his Pontes ctRivi Juris Civilis): t
Exodus 22:29
Thou shalt not delay to offer the: first of thy ripe fruit, &c. Tho Hebrews will have this to be a direction for the bringing unto God, in due order, those things which were to be offered to him. As, first, the trumah; which was the first oblation that was made out of the corn, when it was newly threshed out: which w T as to be, they say, a fiftieth part; which was given to the priest. Then the first tithe, which was given to the Lovites; and the secondtithe, which the possessors ate at Jerusalem, when the tarbernacle was settled there. This order, they say, God here requires them not to invert, by offering that last which should have been first. So R. Levi of Barcelona, (Praeccpt. Ixxviii.) But, from what follows, it seems to relate only to the first-fruits of their harvest, and of their vintago; which they were bound to bring as soon as they were ripe; and it was tho portion of the priests. (See Deut. xviii. 4.) There was no determinate portion prescribed: but they who wero tolerably good (as the Hebrews say) gave a fiftieth part; liberal men a fortieth; and covetous men a sixtieth; less than which was not accepted for a trumah. The first-born of thy sons slialt thou give me.] The reason of this is given chap. xiii. when it was first enacted.. Vcr. 30. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, &c] See xiii. 2. 12. 15. On the eighth day thou shalt give itwe.~\ It was not acceptable to God, because not fit to be offered to him, till the eighth day; for tho same reason that children were not circumcised till the eighth day. For all creatures, when they are newly born, saith Maimonidcs, (par. iii. More Nevoch. cap. 49.) by reason of their abundant moisture, are so weak and feeble, that it is doubtful whether they will live or no: and therefore, till seven days be over, they are looked upon as but abortives (so his words are), and scarce numbered among’the living. Besides, they are not sufficiently purged till then from the foulness of their stomach and bowels: which is another reason they were not to bo offered unto God; who did not accept that which was imperfect or impure. Whatsoever was the reason, this law was observed also among the gentiles, as Bochart shews out of Pliny in his Hierozoic. par. i. lib. ii. cap. 50. Yet there was this difference between these and the first-fruits mentioned in the foregoing verse; that though these creatures were fit for sacrifice on the eighth day, yet they might stay longer before they were offered, though not beyond the year, for then they w r ere not accepted, (as was observed before, xii. 5.) but the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oil, wero to be offered presently, as soon as they were ripe.
Exodus 22:31
And ye shall be holy men unto me. Because the Israelites were a peculiar people, separated to God by peculiar laws and rites by him instituted, (and thence called a holy nation, xix. 6.) therefore God commanded them to distinguish themselves, even in their diet, from other people; and look upon it as below their dignity to eat such things as the gentiles did. This is the meaning of their being holy to God, as appears from Deut. xiv. 2, 3. 21. Neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field.] Both because the blood was in it arid it was devoured by unclean creatures. R. Levi, beforementioned, saith, it was unwholesome; which he makes the reason of the prohibition. But whether it was torn by a wolf, a lion, or a bear, or any other beast, it made no difference, if so be it died presently, or not long after. So tho Jews interpret the Hebrew w r ord terephah, as L’Empereur observes out of Moses Mikkotsi, (in his notes upon Bava kama, cap. 7. sect. 2.) who saith it signifies that which a beast tears, or bruises, so that it is near to death, though it be not actually dead. For if it w r as dead, they call it rbl) nevelah, a carcass; which in their language signifies not only that which dies of itself, but which is killed with a weapon, or torn by a wild beast. Accordingly they take terephah hero to signify, not only that which is torn by beasts, but that which any other way is so hurt that it is near to death. As, if it fall from a house, and break its ribs, or other members; or an arrow be shot through its heart or lungs; or any disease have affected those vital parts. If death were likely to ensue upon such things, it was not to be eaten. In the field.] Whether it were torn in the field, or any