Leviticus 19
PATUlPON LEVITICUS. Tliou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field. But leave a sixtieth part (as their wise men have determined it), and that in the extreme part of the field, rather than any other place, that the poor might know where to come for it; as R. Levi Barzelonita explains it, Pnecept. ccxiii. And this, whether they were in the land of Israel, or out of it; as Mr. Selden observes out of the Talmndists, lib. vi. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 6. p. 692. where he shews it was the custom to add something to the sixtieth part, proportionable to the largeness of the field, or the multitude of the poor, or the greatness of the crop. Neither shalt thuu gather the gleanings of thy harvest.] That is, if an ear or two of corn fell (as they cut it, or bound it up) out of the sheaves, or from under their sickle, they were not to gather them up from the ground, but leave them for the poor, as oft as they fell: but not if there fell three ears at a time, as theTalmudists determine: (see Mr. Selden in the place abovenamed; and the same R. Levi, Prascept. ccxiv.) Ver; 10. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard.’] When they had cut off the great bunches, they were not to examine the vine over again for the scattered grapes, or small clusters.’ Neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard.] If any fell to the ground as they gathered them, they were not to take them up. That is, if one or two clusters fell; but not if three, much less if more: for they construe this as they do the precept about ears of corn, (ver. 9.) They also say, they were bound to leave the comers of the vineyard uncut, as well as the corners of the field. (R. Levi Barzelonita, Praecept. cexxx. and cexxxi. and Mr. Selden, lib. vi. de Jure Nat. ct Gent. cap. 6. in the place beforenamed.) And these precepts obliged such strangers as sojourned among them, (mentioned chap. xvii. 8. and xviii. 2(5.) who, before they were admitted to embrace the Jewish religion, were examined whether they understood that they must observe such and such precepts, particularly these here mentioned, which were propounded to them plainly and distinctly: and after they had promised to keep them, they were circumcised,&c. As G.Schickard observes out of the Talmud, the custom was, after the destruction of Jerusalem, in Mishpat Hamelek, cap. 5. Theorem xvii. TJiou shalt leave them for the poor and the stranger.’] Though by stranger the Jews think is understood a proselyte of righteousness (as they call him who had embraced their religion, by receiving circumcision), yet they did not hinder any poor gentile from partaking of this charity; as the same R. Levi says. And if any one transgressed any of the precepts contained in these two verses, he was beaten; as Mr. Selden shews, lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 13. n.8.’ lam the Lord your God.] I give you the conntry to which you go, with these reserves for the poor: and’ have been so bountiful to you, that I require you to be so to them. another, and goes about the country, as a tale-bearer doth from house to house, carrying to one what he hath heard at another; saying, such a one hath said so and so of you; whereby peace and concord are destroyed among men. For commonly such men carry false stories to their neighbours, or add to the true, and secretly backbite others: which hath moved many to think a detractor is meant by this word, who hopes by his tales of others to get some advantage to himself, as every trader doth by his merchandize. Whence the Jews say, " An evil tongue kills three: him that speaks; him that hears; and him of whom he speaks," R. Levi, Praecept. ccxliii. Neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighhour.] Much less be a false witness against him, to the endangering of his life. So it is commonly interpreted, because the accusers and witnesses stood before judges who sat in the courts of judgment But R. Levi Barzelonita, and the rest of the Hebrew doctors, generally understand it otherwise; that no man should suffer his neighbour to perish in judgment, or other ways, when he could free him by his testimony or assistance: (Praecept. ccxliv.) So it is said in Siphra, in so many words: “Whence do we gather that he who can clear another by his testimony, must not suppress it in silence? Because it is said, Thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy neighbour/’ Whence it follows, that if a man saw his neighbour any way in danger, he was bound, if he could, to deliver him; not only when his life was in hazard, but that which is as dear as life, one’s honour and chastity. Thus, if any one went about to force a woman, espoused to another, &c. he that saw it was bound to rescue such a person, though with the death of him that made the attempt. For this was a piece of justice which they committed to private men, as Mr. Selden shews out of the Jewish authors, (lib. iv. de Jure N. ct G. cap. iii. p. 481, &c.) But then, they restrain this charity only to themselves; and from the word neighbour argue, that they are bound to do thus only to an Israelite, Nay (which is strange), some of them arc so selfish, and so ill-natured, that they fancy they arc forbidden to do such kindness to a gentile. (See there, p. 485. -. And not at all redeemed, nor freedom given hei:] Not entirely, but in part redeemed; and consequently her freedom not absolutely granted to her. She shall be scourged.] If she had been perfectly free, both he that lay with her, and she herself, should have been put to death, (Deut. xxii. 23, 24.) But being not fully free, and consequently not fully his wife who had espoused her, it was not reckoned adultery; and therefore punished only with scourging, (see Selden, lib. v. de Jure N. et G. cap. 12. p. 613.) And Maimonides, I observe, thus expounds it, of a woi^an that was not a mere servant, and yet not completely free, but between both, (More Nevoch. par; ill. cap. 41.) But whereas we mention here in the text the scourging only of the woman; in the margin it is rightly noted, that the Hebrew words are, there shall be scourging; viz. of them both, as the Vulgar Latin, w T ith great reason, understands it. And the Hebrew’ word bikkoreth properly signifies scourging with thongs made of a bull’s or ox’s hide; as Bochartus observes in his Hierozoicon, (par. i. lib. ii. cap. 29. and cap. 33. n. 8.) They shall not be put to death, because she was not free.] Her master not having set her quite at liberty, her marriage was not complete; which freed her from suffering death, though some punishment she deserved, because it was begun. which they should rest from their labours, leaving all the other six days to be employed in their business, without tiny difference of days or hours. But there being no such signification, as many think, of that word in the Hebrew language, they rather derive teonenu from anan, a cloud, imagining Moses to forbid them to mark the flying of the clouds, or to make observations from their motions; which was a thing common among the gentiles. But Maimonides, who, in the eleventh chapter of Avoda Zara interprets it, as we do, of observing times, by esteeming one day fortunate, and another unfortunate, mentions another notion of this word from ain> an eye; and saith, in the same treatise, that jugglers, who delude men’s sight, in playing their tricks, are comprehended under the name of meqnim. And there are those also, who, deriving this word from anah, to answer, think it intends such as pretended to tell their fortunes. I shall not determine which of these is most likely; but only observe, that there was no superstition of this sort more ancient than that of astrology, which was in use among the old Chaldeans, who pretended to cast men’s’nativities (as we speak), and thence to tell their fortunes. But this sort of men were rejected, as Strabo tells us, lib. xv. by the astronomers of that country, and so they were by the best philosophers in other nations, as Tully tells us, who calls their pretences CJialdaorum Monstra, lib. ii. dc Divin. And therefore, no wonder God cautions his own people against them, as he doth not only here, but by his prophets, especially Jeremiah x. 2, 3.’” Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the heathen are dismayed at them," &c. But then this caution was most necessary, when they were going captives into that country, which at that time was’ undoubtedly infected with this error, but may be thought, perhaps, not to have been so in the days of Moses; and therefore I say no more of it, but this, that all those whom we call jugglers, were sometimes comprehended under the name of Chaldeans; who seemed to perform wonderful things, as vomiting fire, and transforming straws into birds, &c. which relate to tho other notion of meononu, derived from r>y, which signifies an eye; which they deluded by the sleight of their hand, or other means. Some of the Jews confess, that their nation is at this day extremely addicted to these things. Sec Wagenseil’s Annot. on Sota, p. 529, &c. where he recites a long passage to this purpose, out of Frcdericus Franciscus Offingensis, a converted Jew; whom one of his own nation undertaking to confute, he confirmed the charge. gospel); but the perpetual practice of the Jewish nation shews, that they thought themselves obliged by this precept to use reverence in. their synagogues, which were neither instituted by any written precept of the law, nor for any ceremonial service, which, was confined to the temple, but for public assemblies, to hear the law read and expounded, and to offer the prayers of the people to God; for in the Psalms of Asaph (where there is the only mention we find of synagogues in the Old Testament), they are called, not only houses and assemblies of God, but also sanctuaries (as the word is here in Moses), Psal. Ixxiii. 17. lxxiv. 4.7, 8. lxxxiii.12. See Mr. Thorndike in his Rights of the Church in a Christian State, p. 213. p. 875.)whcTe he requires that a youth should honour a stranger that was his ancieut; and hath this memorable saying, KaXXwTrf&txS’cu X9i ri i ) k«Xwc SovXtvaat, &c. that youth should glory more in obeying well, than in ruling well: and first of all in obeying the laws; for this is all one ivith serving God; and next in giving honour to old men; and to those especially, who have passed their daijs.honourably and with glory. (Sco more to this purpose in Hcnricus Stephanus do Juris Civilis Font, et Rivis.) And there was the greater Teason for this reverence.towards, old men in this nation, there being nothing else, amdng them but age and experience that could distinguish them; for they were all equally noble, and equally rich; of the same profession, and brought up in the same manner. » And honour the face of the old man:) Or, of the elder; that is, or those who are skilful in the law, as the Jews interpret it; and I see no reason to contradict it (as some have done), since he speaks of aged persons before. See Mr. Selden, lib. i. de Synedr. cap. 14. where he deduces this at large: and another excellent writer of our own, Mr. Thorndike, in his Rights of the Church in a Christian State, p. 214, &c. *5 For if such as taught the law had not been honoured before men, nobody would bare minded their words, nor received what they propounded, about things to be known or to be done;" as Maimonides’s words are, in his More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 36. And it made no difference of what age he was, whether an old man or a young (for some elders, it appears by Daniel, were not aged); but the same honour wafe given to him, even by wise men, as R. Levi Barzelonita shews, (Prsecept cexxii.) And fear thy God.] This is the fountain of all virtue; particularly of the forementioned; God having imprinted a venerable character upon those who are grown aged, especially on such as are wise, and instruct others in virtue. But some of the Hebrews think that in this verse there are three degrees of honour enjoined to three ranks of men; one to the aged; the next to the wise and learned; and the third to the judges; who they imagine are here meant by Elohim (God) whom they are commanded to fear or reverence. I am the Lord.] Most high above all; and therefore greatly to be feared., judge: and if he commit any fraud in his measures or weights, he is a corrupter of judgment, and is called wicked, abominable, accursed. They are the words of R. Levi Barzelonita, Praecept. cclx. where he adds, that such men are the cause of five mischiefs, which are imputed to unjust judges: " who defile the land; profane the name of God; remove the presence of the Divine Majesty; bring a sword upon the people; and at last carry them captive out of their own country/’ And therefore great punishments have been enacted in all countries against this crime, as destructive to human society; particularly Justinian ordained that such offenders should be beaten I<rxv/owc <oc amfitlg sorely, as impious people. In mete-yard,] By which they measured lands, cloth, and such-like things; for middah (as Fosterus observes) is the measure of continued quantity, viz. in things dry. In weight.’] By which they paid and received money in those days; and sold brass and iron, and things of like nature. Or in measure.’] The Hebrew word mesurah (from whence seems to come the Latin mensura, and our English word measure) denotes the measure of discrete quantity (as we speak), as of corn; and of all continued fluid quantity, as of wine and oil. And the forenamed R. Levi will have it to signify the very least of such measures; about which, saith he, the law concerns itself, that men should be exact in them, as well as in the greatest. And so Hesychius here notes, that Moses provides against all injustice in small things, as well as in great; for what the possession of a field or a house is to a wealthy man, that the measure of wine or corn, or the weight of bread, is to the poor, who have daily need of such things for the support of their life.
Leviticus 19:2
Again thou shalt say to the children of Israel. Repeat what I said before, (chap, xviii.21.) and add this which follows unto it. Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth among you.] The proselytes, who had embraced their religion, were no less concerned in this law than the native Israelites:’ (see chap. xvii. 8. 10, &c.) That giveth any of his seed unto Moloch.] This looks like the prohibition before given, (chap, xviii. 21.) and R. Levi gives this reason of its repetition — because it was a piece of idolatrous worship so usual in those days, when the law was delivered, that there needed great endeavours to preserve them from it, (Praecept, ccviii.) And Maimonides also observes, (as I noted upon chap, xviii. 21.) that idolaters used to fright people into this worship, by telling them their children would die, if they did not make them pass through the fire, and thereby devote them to their gods. But upon due consideration of these words, it may appear probable, that there is something more in them than in the former; importing a higher degree of this sin. For to give their children to Moloch, seems to be no less than to offer them in sacrifices (so Christ giving himself for us, constantly signifies in tho New Testament), which was a more horrid thing than merely making them pass through the fire, which did them no hurt. And therefore this crime is here forbidden under the penalty of death; whereas in the eighteenth chapter no punishment is threatened. Certain it is, children were really burnt upon the altars of the ancient pagans, especially in times of great distress, when they hoped to pacify the anger of their gods, by offering to them the dearest thing they had: sec our great Selden/ lib. dc Diis Syris Syntagm. i. cap. 6. where he shews the Phoenicians offered their children to Saturn, (so Porphyrius expressly says, lib. i. dc Abstin.) who is said by the poets to have devoured his ow f n children; and by many is thought D 3L [CHAr. xx. to be the same with Moloch. Though others take it for the sun, to whom it is certain human sacrifices were offered. Many authors make mention of it; and Eben Batrich thinks such sacrifices began in the days of Serug, and were first used among the Syrians. Which is a very probable opinion, as Johan. Gcusius hath demonstrated, (lib. dq Victimis Humanis, par. i, cap. 4, 5.) And it is easy to conceive how, from the Syrians, this abominable practice was derived to the Phoenicians, who worshipped the sun under the name of Baal, or Bel, as Herodian (lib. yiii.) testifies. Which doth not contradict what others say, that they were devoted to the worship of Hercules: for by him is meant the sun also, as his very name imports, viz. Or-col, which in that language signifies as much as him that illuminates all things. From the Phoenicians this worship^ of offering human sacrifices was propagated to the Carthaginians, and pther people of Africa, among whom this impious idolatry continued till the time of Hannibal; as Bochartus gathers out of Silius Italicus: (lib. iv.) “Mos fuit in populis quos condidit advena Dido, Posccre crede Deos veniam, ac flagrantibus aris,; Infandum dictu, parvos imponere natos.” Who says, the Carthaginians were wont to appease their gods, by burning their children on their altars: and then follows (after the words now mentioned) the lamentation of Imilce the wife of Hannibal, whose son was, by lot, to be sacrificed, (lib. i. Canaan, cap. 28.) And this wicked custom continues still to this day, among some of the people in the southern parts of Africa, as good authors affirm; it having spread itself all over the world (as appears by the discoveries that have been made in America), even into the northern countries of Scythia. But I shall content myself with observing only what the Scripture saith concerning a people in the east, called Sepharvites, who " burnt their children in the fire to Adramelech," 2 Kings xvii. 31. which god seems to have been the same with Moloch, here mentioned by Moses; only with the addition of an epithet, signifying their opinion of him: for adra is as much as potent, or mighty; and therefore Melech signifying a king, Adramelech is in our language mighty king. Now, that the children of Israel, notwithstanding this severe prohibition against it, imitated this barbarous worship, is evident from 2 Kings xxiii. 10. Jer. vii. 31. xix. 5. Psal. cvi. 37, 38. and we may very well think the prophet Micah also alludes to it, chap. vi. 7. as Isaiah, Ivii. 5, 6. and Ezekiel, xvi. 20, 21. 36. xxiii. 37. 39. likewise do. The" manner of sacrificing their children, and the figure of the idol to which they offered, are described by! many, according to the Jewish notion; particularly by Paulus Fagius out of Jalkut: who makes it a hollow image, having seven apartments in. it (according to the number, I suppose, of the. seven planets), into one of which, viz. the lowest, the infant was thrown when it was red hot; as flour, a turtle-dove, a sheep, &c. were into the rest. We can have no certainty of this; but such kind of statues were found in the West Indies when they were discovered, as Ludovicns Vives observes in lib. vi. cap. 19. de Civitate Dei. And Diodorus Siculus, in his Bibliothcca, lib. xx. describes the statue of Saturn among the Carthaginians, as stretching forth its hands down towards the earth; so that the child which was put into it might roll and fall, dc, rb X^fxa irXijpts irvpbg, into a gulf, full of fire. Benjamin Tudclcnsis in his travels (a!bout five hundred years ago) affirms, that, in some islands in the east, the worshippers of fire were wont to leap into it, in performance of some solemn vow, and were counted by all to be happy men. Which I mention here, because he says these fires were kindled in a valley, as those among the Jews were in the valley of Hinnom, (p. 108, 109.) He shall surely be put to death.] Sufficient proof being made of the fact, (Deut. xvii. 6.) The people of the land shall stone him with stones.] Which was the proper punishment in this, and in some other cases; particularly adultcry,(ver.lO.) and blasphcmy,(chap. xxiv. 14, &c.) The manner of it is described out of a Hebrew MS. (Ez Hechajim.) by J. Wagcnseil, upon Sota, cap. 3. to have been thus: he that was to be punished with stoning was stripped naked, having only a covering before, and set upon a high place, attended by the witnesses against him, his hands being bound: one of the witnesses giving him a strong push, threw him down headlong from thence. If this fall killed him, there was an end; but if life remained in him, the witnesses took up a stone, which was laid there on purpose, as big as two men could lift, and threw it upon him; and before he quite expired, all the people that stood by threw stones at him, according to the law, (Deut. xvii. 7.) A woman w r as only stripped to her shift.
Leviticus 19:3
And Iwillset my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people. In case, that is, there was not sufficient proof against him, God threatens that he himself would take care to punish him, by cutting him off from the land of the living. R. Bechai, and others, observe, that this cutting off is threefold in the law: one is, the cutting off the body, i.e. shortening men’s lives; which is threatened to six sins in Scripture. The second is, the excision of’the soul only; which is threatened by Moses six-and-twenty times, and particularly to incestuous marriages* The third is, excision both of soul and body; which is threatened to fifteen sins; among which they reckon this, of giving their children to Moloch: (seeSelden, lib. vii. de Jure N. et G. sec. Heb. cap. 9. p. 828, 829, &c.) To defile my sanctuary.] By this sin God’s sanctuary was defiled, as well as his holy name profaned, because they sacrificed to Moloch in other places, despising the tabernacle, which was the only place appointed by God where Divine service was to be performed. And therein consisted part of the honour and, reverence which God required to his sanctuary, (chap. xix. 30.) that it should, be looked upon as the only place where acceptable sacrifices could be offered to him. And therefore, then it was dishonoured and defiled, when they offered sacrifice in any other place, as they did, in aftertimes, to Moloch in the valley of Hinnom, as I observed before, 2 Kings xxiii. 10. Where they built high places to Baal (which is another name for the sun), on purpose that they might offer their children upon them, (Jer. xx. 5, 6. xxxii. 35.) This was a plain contempt of God, and of his sanctuary, which they forsook, as if it had not been a holy, but a defiled place. Otherwise they would have kept to it, and offered no where else, nor after any other manner than according to the rites thereof. And, to profane my holy name.] By giving the name o( God and his honour to such an abominable idol.
Leviticus 19:11
Ye shall not steal. Here arc several moral precepts put briefly together, for the maintaining justice and truth; without which* societies cannot be preserved. And, first, he forbids theft; the coveting of other men’s goods being the source of the other sins that follow. And whether they were the goods of an Israelite, or of a gentile idolater, that any man stole, he was bound to make restitution, as R. Levi observes, Praecept. cexxxii. (See Expd. ■xxii. 1.) Neither deal falsely.] This is a Divine caution (as the Hebrew doctors observe) against denying a thing that was deposited with them; or which they had found, &c. which they would never pretend they had not, if they were disposed to be sincere and upright in their dealing. Neither lie one to another.] Words being intended to declare the mind, and for no other end; he that hears us speak hath a right in justice to be done him, that what wc speak be true. For otherwise he doth not know our mind by our words; and then we had better be dumb. But though all kind of lying be contrary to the intention of God, in giving us speech; yet this relates particularly to’ such lies whereby a man’s neighbour was injured; defrauded, for instance, of his goods which he had deposited with another; or of the just debts which were owing him, &c. But though the simple denying of such things was not punished with beating, as Mr. Selden represents the opinion of the Talmudists, (lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 11.) yet he that denied a thing deposited with him was not admitted to be a witness in any case, though he had not forsworn himself unto which this lying disposed him. So R. Levi, Praecept cexxxiii.'
Leviticus 19:12
And ye shall not siuear by my name falsely. Much less was it lawful for them to confirm the lies forementioned with an oath. So the Jewish doctors interpret it, as Mr. Selden observes in the same place. If any man did, arid was found guilty, he was adjudged to restore the principal, and a fifthpart more, (chap.vi. 5.) And whether he forswore himself knowingly, or ignorantly, he was to expiate his crime with a sacrifice. But if he was ignorant of that command concerning a sacrifice; or if, though he had the thing which he denied in his keeping, yet he had really forgot it, when he swore he had it not; he was freed both from the fifth part and from the sacrifice. (See chap.’ v. 40 Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.] By calling God to witness unto a frivolous thing, or to a rash resolution: as if a man swore in his anger he would not speak to such a person, but afterward did; or, he would’ not eat of such meat, &c. In such cases, the Jews say, when a man’s heart was touched with repentance for his* rashness and incogitancy, he was to go to some wise man, or to three neighbours, and desire them to absolve him* from his oath, of which he truly repented. Which they did, when they found him truly penitent; saying, Be thou loosed, or, It is remitted to thee, or the like. So Mr. Selden observes out of Maimonidcs, lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 11. n. 9. Plato hath said some remarkable things concerning/orswearing, and also of lying, and deceit: for which I refer the learned reader to his eleventhbook of Laws, p. 216, 217. edit. Scrrani. I am the Lord.] And therefore expect the greatest reverence to my name; and that you should deal honestly onewith another.
Leviticus 19:13
Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him’, &c. Here are several’ prccepts,almost coincident in their sense, but have some peculiar negations belonging to them. For (as R. Levi Barzelonita observes), " in all things from which God would have them carefully abstain, he multiplies admonitions/’ (Praecept. exxxvi.) Ac- Digilized by Microsoft ® cordingly hero to defraud is to keep in one’s hfind that which belongs to another: and such a person, he saith, is galled an oppressor in Scripture. The Vulgar Latin refers U to that which men get from others by calumny: as the next words relate to that which is wrested, from them by open violence. Neither rob him.] The same II. Levi expounds this of that which is taken from another by manifest force, and doth not belong to him that takes it, (Praecept. ccxxxvii.) For so the Hebrew word gazilah signifies, that which a man wrests out of the hand of another against his will, (1 Chron.xi.23.) The wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night till the morning.] For this was a kind of force and robbery, to detain what was owing to him against his will. In Deut. xxiv. 15. the words are, " Thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it." From, whence the Hebrew doctors conclude there were two sorts of people that wrought for hire; one were day-labourers, whom Moses speaks of in this verse; another labourers by night, of whom he speaks in Deuteronomy. Neither, of which were to stay for their wages beyond the timeapr. pointed; but the one were to have it before sun-set, the other before morning; for it was due as soon as the day or the night was done. So the Misna, The day-labourer requires his wages all night, and the night-labourer all day. See the forenamed R.Levi, (Praecept. cexxxviii.) w T ho gives this reason for it; that " the merciful God would have his creatures subsist; which poor labourers cannot do, if they. w r ant their wages to buy them victuals." Upon which account, the detaining of their wages is said to be a crying sin, in that Deut. xxiv. 14. and in St. James, v. 4.
Leviticus 19:14
Thou shalt not curse the deaf. No Israelite, whether man or woman, was to be cursed, though he could not hear the curse, and so was insensible of the injury, as R. Levi explains it, (Praecept. cexxxix.) For there was the addition of barbarous baseness in it, to curse or revile a person who was not capable to answer for himself, nor do himself right; and the case of the sick, and the infirm, or the absent, was the same with the deaf. As for.others, who, were not deaf, it was forbidden to curse them, saith Maimonides, because it provoked to anger and rage, which stirred men up to take revenge. t * Nor put a stumbling-block before the blind.] This is as inhuman as the former; proceeding from so gTeat malice, that the Hebrew doctors seem to think men incapable of it; and therefore expound it of giving ill counsel to simple people, and advising them to their damage. So R. Levi; (Praecept. ccxl.) which is no less contrary to nature than laying a stumbling-block in the way of those that cannot see to avoid it; and a far greater sin, because it abused their minds, and might tend to the hurt of their souls. But shalt fear thy God.] Believing he sees and hears, and w T ill avenge the cause of those who cannot right themselves, because they know not who injured them. If any man w r as convicted of cither of these, crimes ho was beaten. I am tlie Lord.] And am therefore to be feared and obeyed.
Leviticus 19:15
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment. The Jews take this to be an admonition to their judges,, that they should have an equal regard to the plaintiff and [CHAP. XIX* defendant, and not prefer; the one before the other. Whence these words are thus explained in Siphra: “Thou shalt judge thy neighbours justly; not letting one party stand, and bidding the other sit; nor suffering one to speak as much, as he pleaseth, and bidding the other be short.” (See Selden de Synedr. lib. ii. cap. 13. n.10.) But none hath explained this so largely as Maimonides, in the whole twenty-first chapter of Sanhedrin, where he, in general, defines the just administration of justice to consist in an equal respect to both parties in the suit; so that one of them have not the liberty to say what he will, and the other be cut short: and then, descends to many particulars, wherein equal respect to both parties is to be observed; some of which, it will be fit to mention, because they illustrate the words of St. James, in the second chapter of his Epistle, ver, 2 — 4. " If two parties appear in a cause, one of which is clothed in precious garments, the. other i* ragged, or in a poor habit, Jet it be said to him that is the more honourable, Either do you bestow upon your adversary as good-apparel as you have on yourself, or else put on such as be wears, that you may be both alike, and then appear before the court of judgment. By no means let the one sit, and the other stand; but let them both be commanded to stand: or, if it please the judges to give them both leave to sit, let not one of them sit in a high place, the other in a low, but both on the same bench, one. by the side of the other." See R. Levi Barzelonita, (Prae-. cept. cexvii.) who observes, that mankind are preserved by a righteous judgment; and therefore, if a judge was found to have given an unjust sentence, he was condemned to make restitution^ him, whose cause he had perverted, (Praecept. ccxli.) Thou shalt not respect, the person of the poor.] SeeExod. xxiii. 3. Nor honour the person of the mighty.] This R. Levi explains, (Praecept. ccxlii.) as he did the first clause: “Tho judge shall not bid the great man sit down while the meaner stands; but both shall, stand before, the. judge, as if they were in the presence of the Divine Majesty, who standeth in the midst of the judges,” (PsaL lxxxii. 1.) If, by the^ favour of the judges, both were permitted to sit, yet, when sentence came to be pronounced, both rose up and stood; according to Exod. xyiii.13. But in righteousness shalt tlipu judge thy neighbour.] The observation of Maimonides seems to be too nice and curious, who from this place gathers, that though the lowest court of judgment ordinarily consisted of no less than three judges, yet, by the law, one of them might sit alone as judge in matters not capital; because it is said here, in the singular number, in nghteous7iess shalt thoujudgv thy. neighbour: for, at the same time, he acknowledges their wise men require that he should take some assessors to him, when they say, Do not judge by thyself alone, for there is no sole judge, but one only, viz. God. (See Selden, lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 14. n. 2. and Guil. Schickardi Mishpat Hamelek, cap. 4. Theor. xiv.)
Leviticus 19:16
Thou shalt not go np and down as a talc-bearer among thy people. The Vulgar Latin takes the Hebrew word rachil to signify one that goes about with calumnies. But it may simply signify, as we translate it, a tale-bearer; whom Aben Ezra compares to a merchant or pedlar (as the Hebrew word imports), who buys of one what he sells to.
Leviticus 19:17
TJwu shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart. When thy brother hath done thee any wrong, do not conceal a secret hatred against him in thy breast, but tell him plainly of his fault; as the next words. seem to direct. It appears by this, they were ill interpreters of the law, who thought it forbade only external acts of sin, but not evil affections which were not executed. Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour,,] Time after time (if he will not be sensible of it at first) argue the case with him, and reprove him for his fault. And if he will not amend, do it publicly (as the Vulgar Latin interprets it), and bring-him before the judges. So R. Levi, Praecept. cexviii. But he extends this to all sins, whether against God, or against themselves; which, he thinks, they were bound to reprehend privately, and then publicly, if the offenders did not grow better. And not suffer sin upon him.’] He interprets it, But not put him to confusion. For nothing is more grievous to a man than that: and therefore reprehension ought to be mild and gentle, especially when the offence is against one’s self; but in those against God, greater sharpness is allowable. VOL, T. So he discourses, Praecept. ccxlvi. the words in the original being, Thou shalt not bear sin upon him; charge him with his guilt too severely; or, as others take it, Thoa shalt not accuse him of any crime whereof he i$ not guilty Our translation, in the margin of our Bibles, takes it as if, by not reproving their neighbour, they brought the guilt of his sin upon. themselves; for„so the words there are, That thou bear not sin for him: which is an excellent sense, if the Hebrew word alau did not signify npon him, not fgr him. And yet some of the Jews have thus understood it; this saying of Rabbi Chanina being famous among them, " Jerusalem had not been destroyed; but because one neighbour did not. reprove another:" see Selden, lib. i. de Synedr. cap. 9. p. 280. Where he observes, the doctrine of the ancient Jews was (drawn from this text), that when one man offended another in things concerning themselves, relating to their civil affairs, he was to be reproved by his neighbour, once, or twice, or thrice, if the matter required; but without sharpness, and so that he was.not.exposed to public shame: but if the offence was against God, in matters of religion, they say private reproof was first to be given; and if that did not work amendment, then public before all. And they admitted public reprehension upon no other score: but said, " He that publicly puts his brother tO:shame, shall have no part in the other world."
Leviticus 19:18
Thou shalt not avenge. Not deny to do their brethren a kindness, out of a remembrance,6f any injury received from them; as It. Levi interprets it, (Praecept. ccxlvii.) By which means, as he observes, strife and contention were abolished, and peace and concord established among men. It may be thought, also, that as they are forbidden to take revenge themselves for the wrongs any one did them; so likewise to seek for redress from the public, merely to satisfy their wrath and desire to have the injurious person suffer, and not to prevent the like or greater mischiefs for the time to come. Nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people*] When thou dost thy neighbour a kindness, do not spoil it by upbraiding him with all his faults. For the Hebrew word natar -signifies having something in reserve in one’s mind, particularly anger or wrath; which our translation frequently supplies to make out the sense, (Jer. iii. 12. Psal. ciii. 9. Nahum i.2.) And so the LXX. understand it here,. koI ov jut|vcccc/&c. and thou shalt not be angry with the children of thy people. “. - But thou shalt love.thy neighbour as thyself] In not doing to him what thou wouldst not have done to thyself; and taking such care of him, and what belongs to him, as thou wouldst have him to do of thee and thine. This, saith R. A’quiba, (as R. Levi observes, Praecept. ccxix.) is the great sum of the law; i. e. many precepts depend upon this: for he that thus loves his neighbour, will neither steal any thing from him, nor violate his wife, nor murder so touch as his good name, nor remove his land-mark, nor offend him any other way: the same, in a manner, with what St. Paul saith, Rom. xiii. 8, 9,.&c.. The only question is, Who is to be understood here by their neighbour? which the Jews would restrain to themselves, and have the meaning to be, that one Israelite should love another; but he is not bound to love a stranger in the same manner: which is directly against Moses’s command, ver. 34, And certain it is, the word IVIICrOSOTT \B/ •A COMMENTARY neighbour comprehends more than Israelites, as appears by the last commandment, which forbids tlicm to covet their neighbours wife, which did not give them leave, sure, to covet the wife of a gentile, provided they did not covet tho wife of an Israelite. A neighbour, therefore, is every other man, as in Deut. xxii. 2G. and more plainly in Exod. xi. 2. whero the Egyptians are called their neighbour. And therefore D. Kimchi saith very honestly, upon Psal. xv. 3. a neighbour is every one with whom we have any dealing or conversation. Which justifies our blessed Saviour, in making this command, of loving their neighbours as themselves, to reach all men with whom they had to do, (Luke x. 27, 28:) lam the Lord, &c] Unto whom you are all equally subject; and upon that account ought to love one another.’(Seo.ver. 34.) «
Leviticus 19:19
Ye shall keep my statutes. This may be thought to be premised to what follows; lest such commands as are contained in this verse, seeming small, should be neglected by them. * Thou shalt not let thy cattle (or rather make them) gender with a diverse kind.] As horses with asses, goats with sheep, &c. whose mixture ono with another they were by no means to procure. But if they did of themselves come •together, it was lawful to use such heterogeneous creatures as were so produced. For they did not abhor the’use of mules, which were either begot by accident among them, or brought from other countries to them. The reason the Jews commonly give for this precept is, because God having made all things perfect in their kind, it was a presumptuous attempt to go about to mend his ^creation, and add to his works. By this means also men were deterred from unnatural mixtures, which they saw to be abominable in brutes. So R. Levi Barzelonita (Praeccpt. ccxlix.) and Philo, whose words are very ingenious, (lib. de Crcatione Princip.) “Things of the same kind were made for society one with another;” but things heterogeneous (as we call them), were not intended to be mixed and associated; and therefore, he who attempts to mingle them, aSifcoe vofiov
Leviticus 19:20
Whosoever lieth carnally with a woman that is a bondmaid^ betrothed to a husband. The Jews had some servants that were gentiles; who, if they embraced the Jewish religion, were baptized; sometimes with the reservation of their servitude, and sometimes with the full grant of liberty. But some there were in a middle condition, partly free and partly servile; viz. when part of their redemption-money had been paid, and part was still behind. Now, as, while a woman was a perfect slave, no Israelite, might marry her; so, when she was paitly free, though he might espouse her, and tho espousals were valid, yet they could not be of full force till her liberty was perfected. And of such a maiden the Hebrew doctors understand Moses to speak in this place, that was in part free, but not wholly, as the next words interpret it.
Leviticus 19:21
And he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord, unto the door, &c. Which was not enjoined her, because she had not wherewithal to offer for her expiation; all she had being her master’s, and not her own. A ram for a trespass-offering.] Which was the proper sacrifice in such a ease, (chap. v. 17, 18.)
Leviticus 19:22
And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass-offering. She needed an atonement as well as he, being equally guilty in consenting to the fact; and being espoused to another, seems to have had a greater guilt upon her; and therefore was left in a lamentable condition, without any public assurance of God’s pardon. For his sin which he hath done.’] Which had so much guilt in it, that besides the punishment he suffered in being scourged, this satisfaction was to be made to God. And the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.] By virtue of the sacrifice, w T hich would not have been accepted if she had been perfectly a freewoman: but the sin would have cost his own life and hers also, (Deut. xxii. 23, 24.)’ -'
Leviticus 19:23
And when ye sliall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food. The precept is so general, that the boldness of R. Zerika is unaccountable, who would have it understood only of the vine, which, if it be hot cut, its grapes are not so large, nor the wine so good, nor fit to be offered at the altar, &c. as his opinion is represented in Pirke Eliezer, (cap. xxix.) But Moses expressly mentioning all manner of trees for food; there is no colour for this limitation; and a very good account may be given of this prohibition, if we have respect only to natural reason. For young trees grow better; if they be stripped of their fruit; the juice of which is waterish and unconcocted, having neither pleasant smell nor taste, as Nachmanides observes; and therefore not fit for food; and upon that score not fit to be offered as tho firstfruits to God. But, besides all this, Maimonides affirms therewas an idolatrous custom among the Zabii, to which this law of, Moses may reasonably be thought to be opposed: for they, imagined all trees would be blasted, or their fruit fall off, whose first-fruit was not part of it offered in tlfeir idol temples, and the other part eaten there: as their children, they thought, would not thrive, unless some of them passed through the fire. And therefore God commanded his people to forbear to eat the fruit of any tree till the fourth year; and not doubt of the fruitfulness of their plantations, though they did not consecrate the fruit of the years foregoing, after the manner that the gentiles did: More Nevoch. par. iii.cap. 37. where he observes some trees brought forth fruit in one year, some not till the second, and others not till the third, according to the different ways wherein they were planted. Ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised.] That is, as unclean, and therefore to be cast away as the foreskin was.. Three years it shall be as uncircumcised to you; it shall not be eaten of] And therefore they plucked off the buds when they put forth, that they might not grow into fruit; or, if any by chance did, they threw it away, as unfit for food. But this is meant only of such fruit-trees as they planted after they came into Canaan; not of such as they, found already planted there. And it was the same thing, whether he planted them himself, or bought an orchard, or vineyard, &c. of another Israelite, or had it left him as an inheritance, or bestowed on him as a gift; the three first years the fruit was not to be used.
Leviticus 19:24
But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy, to praise the Lord withal. It was to be offered as*, the first-fruit to God, and eaten by the priests; which, as Maimonides saith in the bookforenamed, (cap. 49.) was to* excite them to liberality, and give a check to their appetites as well as to covetousness. Yet there are those who say this fruit of the fourth year was to be eaten by, the. owners before the Lord at Jerusalem (when his dwelling was settled there), as they ate the second tithe. So R. Levi Barzelonita(Praecept. ccxx.) shews at large. And they observe many benefits which the Israelites received by this means; not only in exciting their thankfulness to God, but their love to that holy place: unto which some of their family might conceive such an affection, as to settle there, and learn the law.
Leviticus 19:25
In the fifth year shall ye cat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof. He would not have them think that they should lose any thing, by staying till the fifth year for the fruit of their trees; but promises them here, that, by forbearing so long, their trees should be the more exceeding fruitful. I am the Lord.] Who bestowed this land upon them, to hold of him by what tenure he pleased; by whose blessing they might expect to receive the increase thereof abundantly; without the help of sueh wicked arts as Maimonides says the Zabii used: who, letting certain things lie till they were purified, and, when the sun was in such or such a degree, sprinkling them about the trees which they had planted, with certain magical ceremonies, they fancied flowers and fruits would be produced sooner than they could have been without these practices.
Leviticus 19:26
Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood. This 3 K 2 43G [chap. XIX. is an admonition, as It. Levi Barzelonita fancies, (Pneccpt. cclii.) against gluttony and drunkenness; such as tho rebellious son was guilty of, (Dcut. xxi. 18, &c.) which made men prone to shed blood;* for so he understands this precept, Thou shalt not eat upon blood; t. e. eat till thou art excited to shed blood: unto which ho applies Dcut. xxxii. 15. Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked. But this is a very forced interpretation; and our translation is not exact: for ho doth not say, Ye shall not eat any thing with tlie blood; but, Ye shall not eat upon the blood, or at the blood; w^hich Oleaster very sagaciously suspected to be a piece of superstition unknown to him; and so did the LXX.whcn they translated it, ye shall not eat, tVt rwv opluv, upon the mountains, which was an idolatrous custom, mentioned in Hoscaiv. 13. and here forbidden, as Procopius and Hesychius imagine: but the Hebrew word haddam no where signifies a mountain, but blood, as the Vulgar here truly translates it. There is a Greek Scholion which renders these words, ov fyayiaQi iin tov Swfiaroc, ye shall not eat on the house-topi which, in all likelihood, as some have conjectured, was a mistake of the transcriber for C7r$ tov atfiarog, upon the blood, which is the literal translation of the Hebrew phrase, and imports something more than is prohibited, chap. xvii. 12. where he simply saith, no soul of yott shall eat blood; but here warns them against an idolatrous practice x>f the Zabii, who, to enter into the society 6f demons, and obtain their favour, were wont to gather the blood of their sacrifices into a vessel, or a little hole digged in the earth; and then, sitting about it, to eat the flesh of the sacrifices; imagining, that by eating, as it were, of the same food (for they thought the demons fed upon the blood, as their worshippers did upon the flesh), they contracted a friendship and familiarity with them. So Maimonidcs relates in his More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 46. For the prevention of which idolatrous custom, God ordered their sacrifices to be offered only at one place, where his own house was; and there the’ priests sprinkling the blood, and they eating the flesh of their peace-offerings, God and they feasted together upon them. Nachmanidcs is wont to oppose Maimonidcs in his notions; yet this was so plain, that he confesses, (as Dr. Cudworth hath observed, in his treatise of the Right Notion of the Lord’s Supper, chap, ult.) that blood itself was forbidden in the law, upon the account of the heathens’ performing their superstitious worship in this manner, by gathering together blood for their demons, " and then coming themselves, and eating of it with them, whereby they were their demon’s guest; and by this kind of communion with them, were enabled to prophesy and foretell things to come.” And this interpretation is the more probable, that they hoped, by eating of the blood of the sacrifices, or the flesh, or both, to have such familiarity with thorn, as to receive revelations from them, and be inspired with the knowledge of secret things; if we consider the two other prohibitions in this verse, that arc joined with this of not eating upon blood; which shews that it was a rite of divination. Neither shall ye use enchantment.] In the Hebrew the words arc lo tenachashu; which, all agree, signify some superstitious observation or other, whereby they made omens, and guessed what should happen to them; cither from men’s sneezing, or the breaking of a shoe-latchet; or the name of a man they met withal; or some creature’s crossing their way, or passing upon their right hand, or their left. And most, following the LXX. and the Vnlgar Latin, take it for divination by the flying, or crying, or pecking of birds. But the Mord nachash, signifying a serpent, and having no relation at all to birds, the famous Bochartus thinks tenachashu (which seems to be derived. from thence) to relate rather to the ancient 6<ptofiavrtla, divination by serpents, than to their opviOopavrda, divination by birds; for it was very much in use among the gentiles in old time, as appears from Homer, (in his seventh Iliad.) where Chalchas seeing a serpent devour eight sparrows with their dam, divined how long the Trojan war would last: and many such instances he heaps up together in his Hicrozoicon, par. i.lib. i. cap. 3. R.Lcvi Barzelonita (Pracccpt. ccliii.) refers this to any kind of divination: by their staff falling out of their hand; by a serpent creeping on their right hand, or a fox going by their left, &c. which made them forbear any work they were about; but ho thinks withal, it may signify, as we translate it, enchantment: to cure wounds (for instance) by reading a verse of the law; or laying the book of the law, or a phylactery, upon a child’s head to procure sleep; which are such superstitions’ as are now in use among some Christians, who hang the first verse of St. John’s Gospel about people’s necks to cure an ague. But such things could not be meant by Moses, who had not yet delivered them a copy of his laws; nor can we certainly fix upon any other in particular which were then in use; sec J. Coch upon the title Sanhcdrin, cap. 7. n.18. and Maimonidcs de Idololatria, cap. 11. sect. 4—6, &c. where lie gives a great number of instances of such superstitious observations as were in use among the heathen: some of which are mentioned by Theophrastus in his characters of Superstition; and by Plutarch, in his book on the same subject; and are derided by Terence in his Phormio, act: iv. seen. 4. with which superstitions the greatest persons were anciently very much infected; and they were so settled in men’s minds, that when they became Christians, they could not presently shake them off; as appears by the frequent reprehensions which St. Chrysostom (and others) give to those who continued to be governed by them; particularly in his eighth homily upon the Colossians, he chides his people severely for contemning the cross of Christ, and calling in old drunken women with their salt, their ashes, and soot, to free those that were bewitched. And more especially in his sixth homily against the Jews, he sharply rebukes those that used tn^Sal kcu 7repiairra, charms, and things hung about the neck, to cure agues; whereby they got a worse disease in their souls, and wounded their consciences, &c. And in other places he reprehends their observing of omens, good and bad; some of which were very strange (See torn. vi. p. 610, 611. edit. Savil.) Nor observe times.] Take no notice of days, according to the precepts of astrologers, who made some to be lucky, others unlucky. For the Jews generally think something of this nature is here forbidden, the Hebrew word teonenu being derived, they imagine; from onah, which signifies time, (as-R. Lcvi? bcforcmcntioned, saith, Pracccpt. ecliv.) such an hour being thought, by. superstitious people, to be fit for business; but another very cross to it. Which opinion God seems to have intended to extinguish, by appointing the sabbath as the only day of the week upon
Leviticus 19:27
Ye shall not round the corners of your head. Or, The ends of the hair of your head. For the Hebrew word peak, which wc translate corners, signifies also the ends or extremities of any thing: and the meaning is, they were not to cut their hair equal, behind and before; as the worshippers of the stars and the planets, particularly the Arabians, did, (as R. Levi Barzelonita interprets it, Praecept. eclv.) For this made their head have the form of a hemisphere. The LXX. translate it ov TrotriatTE maor\v Ik rye Kt
Leviticus 19:29
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be. a whore. It is scarce to be imagined that any man would prostitute his daughter, to be a common strumpet; though he might possibly overlook the lewdness to which she had given up herself. Therefore here, in all probability, is prohibited the exposing their daughters, as a piece of religion, to the. service of such filthy deities, as were worshipped in those days, by acts of uncleanness in their temples. For which purpose both men and women were.there kept as persons consecrated to such iSCS. Our great Selden halhr observed something of this in his discourse upon Succoth- Benoth. (See Syntagma deDiis Syris, ii. cap. 7.) Those are fanciful interpretations which 11. Eliezer and R. Akiba make of these words; who say, a man prostitutes his daughter who did not get her a husband when she was marriageable; or married her to an old man. (Gem. Sanhedrin, cap. 9. n. 1.) Lest the land fail to whoredom.] Unto which nothingcould contribute so much as to make whoredom a piece of. religion; And the land become full of ivickedness:] By such abominable idolatries (as St. Peter calls them), and many other foul sins, particularly murders, which flowed from hence; as Maimonides observes in his More Nevochim. par. iii. cap. 49.
Leviticus 19:30
Ye shall keep my sabbaths. Not the days consecrated by the gentiles to the service of their gods; but the solemn days which I have appointed for the remembrance of my benefits. (See ver. 2.) - And reverence my sanctuary.] This reverence consisted principally in coming to it so prepared as the law required; in such purity and cleanness as was there prescribed: and then behaving themselves there with an awful humility. But the better to secure this reverence, the masters in Israel ordained, that no man should come into the mountain of the house with a staff, or a sword, or a girdle with a purse, or with shoes on his feet; and that no man should spit there, nor make it a thoroughfare; nor go out of it with his back towards the sanctuary, but go backward leisurely with his face towards it, till he was out of the gate, &c. So Maimonides in his Beth Habbechira, cap. 7. R. Levi Barzelonita, Praecept. cexxi. and see Petrus Cunaeus, lib. ii. cap. 12. de Republ. Hebr. But tho great thing which secured the reverence due to the sanctuary, was, that which I mentioned at first, the strict purity from all legal defilements, with which they were to be prepared; which made it very difficult to be in a condition to approach it. For when there were so many ways of being defiled, and so much time required to make men clean again, and so many things, in many cases, to be done for that purpose, it was not possible that they should befit to come thither very often, without exceeding great care and diligence; as I observed before out of Maimonides, (par. iii. More Nevoch. cap. 47.) which very much tended to preserve their reverence to the sanctuary: for men’ led by sense, as they were, make nothing of those places to which they may go when they please; but those to which they cannot be admitted, without much solemnity, and only at certain times, and after great pains to fit themselves for it, they are apt to have in great esteem. J am the Lord.] Whose majesty dwelt in that house; unto which therefore nobody might approach, either for prayer or for sacrifice, without an awful sense of him. For so Maimonides explains it in the place now named; " the sanctuary itself was not be reverenced, but He who commanded that reverence." Nor did this reverence belong only to the tabernacle or temple, instituted by God’s express command, for that ceremonial service, which was unlawful to be performed any where else (for then it might seem proper only to that ceremonial dispensation, and to be now vanished under the
Leviticus 19:31
Regard not them. Do not go to consult them; nor follow their directions. Tliat have familiar spirits.] It is uncertain what is here meant by oboth, which we translate familiar spirits. But the word ob signifying a bottle, or hollow vessel, (Job xxxii. 19.) the Jews think it probable that oboth here signifies such as the Greeks call’Eyyacrpifivdoi, who had a spirit or demon speaking out of the belly, or chest, with a hollow voice, as if it came out of a bottle. So the woman whom Saul went to consult, is called baalath ob, a mistress of such a spirit; where, it is plain, ob signifies the spirit, or demon, (see chap. xx. 27.) and he or she that had familiarity with such a spirit, was properly called baal, or baalath ob, the: master or mistress who possessed it, and gave answers by it, with a voice that seemed to come out of the lower parts of the belly. In one place, indeed, the LXX. translate it, of Ik Trig yng (puvovvrte, (Isa. xix. 3.) Tliey that speak out of the earth; because the voice coming from the lower parts of her that was possessed, seemed to come out of the earth; as Mr. Selden explains it in de Diis Syris. R. Levi Barzelonita saith, the manner of it was thus: (Prcecept. eclviii.) After certain fumes, and other ceremonies, a voice seemed to come from under the arm-holes (so he takes it, and so it is said in Sanhedrin, cap. 7. n. 7.) of the person that had the familiar spirit, which answered to the questions which were asked. For this he quotes Siphra. But if it came from under the arm-holes, still it was so low and hollow, as if it had been out of the bottom of the belly, or the cavities of the earth. Others imagine such persons had the name of oboth, because they ^vere swelled with the spirit, as a bladder is when it is blown. However it was, this continued till the times of the gospelj as appears from Acts xvi. 16. for she that had the spirit of Python was the same with an lyyaorplfivOoc, as Plutarch informs us. (See Casaubon and L. de Dieu on that place.) The famous Pythia, who delivered the oracles of Apollo, sat over a hole, and by her secret parts received the spirit which swelled her, and made her utter oracles; as Origen observes, lfb.vM, contra Celsum;.and St. Chrysostom, Hom.xxix. in 1 Epist. ad Corinth. (See Beyerus in his Annot. upon Selden de Diis Syris, p. 226, &c.) There are those that look upon all that these authors say as old stories, to which no credit is to be given. But Aug. Eugabinus affirms, that he himself had seen such women; called ventriloquce (which* is the same with the.Greek lyyaarnifivOoi), from whom, as they sat, a voice came out of their secret parts, and gave answers to inquiries. And Ceelius Rhodoginus (lib. viii. Antiq. Lect. cap. 10.) saith, this is not to be entertained with laughter; for not only he saw such a woman, and heard a very small voice coming out of her belly, but innumerable other people, not only at Rhodigium, but in a manner through all Italy; among whom there were many great persons (who had her stripped naked, that they might be sure there was no fraud), to whom a voice answered unto such things as theyinquiredl Hieron. Oleaster also; upon Isa. xxiv. 4. saith, he saw such ah one at Lisbon, from under whose arm-holes, and other parts of her, a small voice was heard, which readily answered to whatever was asked. r - Neither seek after wizards.’] The Hebrew word jideonim, importing knowledge, as all confess, signifies such as we call cunning men; who pretended to tell what was lost, or what fortune people should have; and these were men (as far as I can judge), as the other were mostly women, who held intelligence with some demon; for this word seems to have the very same derivation in Hebrew which the other hath in Greek, for all say Aalfxovtg are as much as darifxovtg, knowers; and jideonim are as much zidjoadim, which is the very same, futurorum conscii,as Mr. Selden observes; and so the LXX. translate it, yvuvrai, (2 Kings xxi. 7.) though here and chap. xx. tilt, they render it tiraotdoi, and elsewhere TtpaTo<jK67roi. This knowledge they pretended to obtain (as some think) by looking into the entrails of their sacrifices; or, as Maimonides will have it, by putting the bone of a certain bird, called jadud, into their mouths, with certain fumes and adjurations, which made them fall into an ecstacy, and foretell things to come. (R. Levi Barzelonita, Praecept. eclix.) And there are those who think’ that these jideonim were such as pretended by charms to cure diseases, &c^ of which we can have no certainty, and it seems to rely only on the LXX. in this place, who, as I observed, translate it by a more general word in another. • To be defiled by them.] AVith the foulest sins. For seeking to these was a forsaking of God, and one peculiar kind of idolatry; and therefore they that were guilty of it were to be stoned (as the same R. Levi observes) if they committed this sin knowingly, and there Avere witnesses of it. If there were no witnesses, then they were left to God to be cut ofF by his hand, (chap. xx. 6.) I am the Lord your God.] Unto whom you arc to seek for all that you desire.
Leviticus 19:32
Tfwu shalt rise up before the hoary head. That they might accustom themselves to modesty and humility, (as Maimonides glosses upon this law, More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 36.) for the maintenance of which the usage was, they say, to rise up to them,* when they were at the distance of four cubits; and as soon as they were gone. by, to sit down again; that it might appear they rose up purely in respect to them. To this nature directed all civilized people; who anciently, as Juvenal says, (Sat. xiii.) believed this a great wickedness, to be punished with death, if a young man did not rise up to an old. " Credebant hoc grande ncfas, et morte piandum,. Si juvenis vetulo non assurrexerat"—: — And such a law there was established among the Lacede-r monians, rovg yipovrag a\a-)(yv£<j%o)aav ovScv rjrrov i) waripag, that aged persons should be reverenced no less than if they were their fathers. And so Plato, -rtag a\U<j%b> rhv tavrov TrQtafivrtpoviQyty koI tiru, let every one reverence him that is. elder than himself indeed and in word, (lib; ix. de Lcgibus,
Leviticus 19:33
And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. Not so much as by upbraiding him with his being a stranger, or his having worshipped idols heretofore; for of such a stranger they understand this, as was become a proselyte to their religion. (See chap. xvii. 8.. 12, 13. and Exod. xxii. 21.) But common humanity teaches every body to be kind to all manner of strangers, and not merely to refrain from oppressing them, or giving them vexation, Plato hath most excellent discourses about this in several places; particularly lib, v. do Legibus, where he shews, that God is the avenger of all wrongs done to strangers, morethan of those that aredone to our fellowcitizens: “Epj/ioc yap £>v 6 &voc kaipvv, &c. For a stranger being destitute of friends and kindred, is the greater object of pity, both of men and of’ God; and therefore, he that can hurt most, should be most ready to help him, &c. (See p. 729, 730. edit. Sefrani.) Upon Hvhich account he makes it lawful for a stranger to pluck any of the best fruit, as ho is upon his way, whether grapes, figs, or apples, &c. (lib. viii. p. 845 f ) And the corn being divided, as ho would have it, into twelve parts; aud a twelfth part divided into three; he orders one of those third parts to be given to strangers, p. 847, 848. Tov 70? ilanrifafifoavra xprj <pi\o r $povua%<n,for a stranger or sojourner, ought to be comforted, in a rnost friendly manner, &c. (See lib. xii. p.
Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth ttiitk thee shall be as one born among you. They understand this only of such a stranger, who by circumcision was become a perfect proselyte; whom they were to bo so far from oppressing, that they were to treat him as if he had been a native Jew, and love him as a brother. And thou shall love him as thyself] He had commanded them, (ver. 18.) to love their neighbour, i. e. an Israelite (they expound it), as themselves; and now he commands them to love a stranger with the same affection; which demonstrates, they think, he was become an Israelite; ami therefore was to have the sam6 privileges with themselves, both in all civil and sacred things. And this, no doubt, was true, that they were bound to treat such a proselyte with a tender affection, and to make no difference between him and an Israelite. • For he was to be admitted to eat of the paschal lamb,‘and of the peace-offering, and he might marry with an Israelite; insomuch, that Moses saith, one ordinance shall be for both, (Numb. xv. 15.) All the difference I can find was, that they never admitted any stranger to be a member of the great Sanhedrin. But notwithstanding all this, I cannot think it reasonable to exclude all other strangers from their affection; but they were bound to love them, and to be kind to them, though not to embrace them with such a strict friendship as the other. And, to confirm this, it may be observed, that in the fourth commandment, the stranger within their gate signifies, as they confess, not him that was a perfect proselyte, but only one that had renounced idolatry: and so they understand the word stranger in the twenty-fifth chapter of this book, (ver. 47.) and I see no reason why such a stranger should not be admitted here to have a share in their affection, who was become a worshipper of the true God, though he had not taken upon Mm to observe the whole, law. For ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.] This reason is littlo less than a demonstration, that such strangers as I now mentioned are comprehended in the’foregoing precept. For the remembrancie of what their condition was in Egypt, is that whereby they afe moved to have pity on those whom they found among themselves in*, the. same; and they and the Egyptians were not of the same religion, but they found such kind entertainment there a long time, as they were to give to those who were of their religion. This argument indeed became stronger, when any persons were incorporated with them, and became more one with them than they wero with the Egyptians; but was of great force to procure kindness to those who did not live by their laws. lam the Lord your GodJ] Who have done so much for you when you were mere strangers, that you should not stick to bo kind to those who are in the liko condition.
Leviticus 19:35
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment. The Hebrews refer this word judgment to all the following particulars; and think that Moses uses it here to shew of what moment this law is, which he calls doing judgment; so that he who measures or weighs hath the office of a
Leviticus 19:36
Just balances, just tveights. This verse only positively requires strict justice in those things, wherein the former Verse forbade all deceit. And these two words refer to things sold by weight. • A just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have.] These two words, ephah and hin, comprehend all sorts of measures of things, whether wet or dry. And, that they might have such just weights and measures among them, the standard of them was kept in the sanctuary, by which all were to be governed; as appears from 1 Chron. xxiii. 29. (See Exod. xxx. 13.) The Jewish doctors also say, that it was a constitution of their wise men, for the preventing all fraud in these matters, that no weights, balances, or measures should be made of any metal, as of iron, lead, tin, &c. (which were obnoxious to rust, or might be bent, or easily impaired), but of marble, stone, or glass, which were less liable to be abused. For these constitutions Moses was so famous, that his name was celebrated on the account of them in other nations. Nay, Lucius Ampclius (a rude kind of writer, but who had collected much out of better authors) saith, that Mochus was the inventor of scales and weights; and that his memory is preserved in the constellation called Libra.’ Now if for Mochus we read Moschos, it is the very name of Moses in Hebrew (viz. Moscheh), who is called so by other authors, as the learned Huctius observes in his Demonstr. Evang. propos. iv. cap. 7. n. 1G. I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.] This is the general reason for their obedience; which is repeated in this chapter above a dozen V0L - u Digitized b times. Sometimes more briefly, I am the Lord; and sometimes a little larger, I am the Lord your God: and here with this addition, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. Whereby he in a special manner demonstrates himself, both to be their Lord (faithful to his promise, Exod. vi. 3.) and their God, who obliged them to his service, by the most singular benefit.
Leviticus 19:37
Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them. These words, statutes and judgments, comprehend all the laws of God: some of which were prohibitions, which they were to mark and 06- serve diligently, so as to abstain from such things; and other precepts, or commands, which they were to practise, and do according to them. I am the Lord.] No more need be said to engage your obedience in every thing than this) that I am your sovereign, and the sovereign of the whole world. CHAP- XX.. Ver.l. JjLND the Lord spake unto Moses, saying.] Some time after the delivery of the laws mentioned in the two foregoing chapters, the chief of them were enforced with the addition of penalties, which are set down in this chapter.