Leviticus 22

his money. There were those of their own nation, who, by their poverty, were compelled to sell themselves, or their children, (chap. xxv. 39.) and others they bought of other nations, (ver. 44, 45, &c.) who, becoming proselytes to the Jews’ religion, were permitted to eat of the priest’s meat, because they became part of His family. And he that is born in his house, &c] They that were born of such purchased servants were their master’s goods, and such a part of their family, that they left them to their children who succeeded them; and, therefore, they also were allowed to e&4 of the meat of the priest. for these four ways they used to castrate a lamb (for.instance) and make it wether; and so they did with kids and calves, as Bochart observes out of Aristotle and others, in his Hierozoicon, par. i. lib. ii. cap. 46. Neither shall you make any offering thereof in your land.’] The word offering is not in the Hebrew, and this passage may be thus exactly translated, neither in your land shall ye make, or do. So the LXX.: the sense of which the Vulgar expresses by adding the word this, i. e. the forenamed castration, either by compression or contusion, or any way; for Josephus saith, it was unlawful among them to geld any creature; which was prohibited to keep them from doing so with men, which they were taught to be abominable. And these words suggested as much, being thus translated, Neither in your land shall it be done. (See Selden, lib. vii. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 3. p. 799.) now repeats it again in the conclusion of this verse, I am the Lord: to whom they owed obedience; especially when he required they should reverently use all holy things,

Leviticus 22:1

JLND the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. These commands that follow wero delivered at the same time with the foregoing; belonging to the same matter: for though the priests, who had a blemish, might eat of the holy things, yet he would have them know, that neither they, nor such as were unblemished, should presume to do it in their uncleanness. Microsoft ® 3 2 [Chap. xxii.

Leviticus 22:2

Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, that they separate themselves. viz. When they were in their uncleanness, (ver. 3.) From the holy things of the children of Israel.*] Abstain from eating (ver. 3, 4. 12.) of that part of the sacrifices which belonged to the priests, but was to be eaten only by such of thcin as were free from legal impurities, (chap. vii. 20, 21.) Nor were they to eat of the first-fruits, which were also their portion, (chap, xviii. Numb. xii. 13.) but they might eat of the tithes, which were allowed for their constant sustenance. And that they prof ane not my holy name.] This is, the very ground of this prohibition; that they might preserve in their minds a due reverence to the Divine Majesty: unto whom, as they might not approach, so they might not meddle with any thing consecrated to him, in a state of legal impurity. All great persons are to be approached with a great deal of ceremony, especially when any are invited to their table; otherwise they might fall into contempt; and therefore, much more was. this reverence to be shewn to the Divine Majesty, that they might entertain high apprehensions of Jiim, by abstaining from all things belonging to him, when they were under any pollution. In those things which they hallow unto me.] Which the children of Israel devoted unto God; for so the foregoing words and the next verse explain it., I am the Lord.] The greatest regard is to be paid to my majesty. *. • <

Leviticus 22:3

Say unto them, Wliosoever he be of your seed. Of the priests. Among your generations.] In succeeding times. That goeth nnto the holy things.] To eat of them; as appears from ver. 4. 6. 12. Jfliich the children of Israel hallow unto the Lord.] Offer to him at his altar. Having his uncleanness upon him.] For which’ they were to separate themselves, (ver. 2.) That soul shall be cut off from my presence.] Thrust out of the priest’s office, no more to minister at the altar; and then it was the act of a judge: or cut ofF from the land of the living; which was done by the hand of Heaven. • lam the Lord.] Who will vindicate my own honour.

Leviticus 22:4

Wltat man soever of the, seed of Aaron. These words, of the seed of Aaron, include his daughters as well as his sons, who might eat of some holy things, (Numb, xviii. 11. ID.) but not in their uncleanness. Is a leper, or hath a running issue.] There are eleven fountains of uncleanness (as the Hebrews speak), two of which are these here mentioned; as appears from chap, xiii. 3. xv. 2. He shall not eat of the holy things until he be clean.] Sec chap. xiv. 2. xv. 13. And whoso toucheth any thing that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goeth from him.] These were two other fountains of uncleanness, (chap. xi. 31, 32, &c. xv. 16.)

Leviticus 22:5

Or whosoever touchet/i any creeping thing, whereby he may be made unclean. See chap. xi. 24, &c. Or a man of whom he may take uncleanness.] See chap. xv. 7. lFliatsoever uncleanness he hath.] Suppose the leprosy, (chap. xiii. 45.) These are two such fountains of uncleanness as the former. Ver. G. The soul which hath touched any such shall be whclean until the even,, and shall not cat, &c] So the law was in the forcnamed cases; as appears by the places abovementioned.

Leviticus 22:7

And when the S7in is down he shall be clean. Having washed his flesh with water. And shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food.] God was so gracious, as not to keep a priest any longer in a state wherein he should want his necessary or comfortable sustenance.

Leviticus 22:8

That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat, to defile himself therewith^ This was forbidden before to all the Israelites, (chap. xxii. 15.) but made a priest no longer unclean than an ordinary man, because of the foregoing reason. i" am the Lord.] Who will have my ministers pure from all such pollutions. The remainder of which were, the uncleanness of the water of separation, as Maimonidcs speaks, chap., xix.21. and of the great sacrifice of expiation, chap. xvi. 28. and of a menstruous woman, chap. xv. 9. and of a woman in child-bed, chap. xii. 2. But nothing made men so unclean as the dead body of a man; which defiled, not only him that touched it, for seven days, but all that came into the house, and every thing that was in the house where he died, (Numb. xix. 11. 14.) which was the reason of the foregoing law, that the high-priest should not go in to the dead body of his father or mother; nor any inferior priest be defiled for any, but their near relations, (chap.’ xxi. 1, 2. 11.)

Leviticus 22:9

Tliey shall therefore keep mine ordinance. Observe this constitution; because, I, who am their Lord, make it. Lest they bear sin for it.] Be punished if they break it. And die therefore.] As Nadab and Abihu did; who presumed to break another law.about holy things.. If they profane it.] By eating of the holy things in their uncleanness. I the Lord do sanctify them.] Separate them to my service; and by such constitutions teach them carefully to avoid all pollutions. »

Leviticus 22:10

Tliere shall no stranger eat of the holy thing. The holy tiling here mentioned is that beforenamed; (chap. x. 14.) and by a stranger he doth not mean one of another nation, but one that is not of the seed of Aaron, or is not one of his family; for the word in the Hebrew is not nechar, which properly signifies such a stranger as is not an Israelite, but zar, which signifies any one to whom a thing doth not belong; as holy things did not to those who were not at least part of the priest’s family, though not of his race.. For, that such might eat of them who were not of their race, provided they belonged to them as a part of their family, appears from the next verse. A sojourner of the priest.] Who boards with hiin (as we now speak), or dwells in a part of his house (as some understand it), but hath a distinct family. Or a hired servant.] Such were those who served by the day, (chap. xix. 13.) or for a certain time, and after that might dispose of themselves as they pleased. Shall not eat of the holy thing.] None of these might eat of the priest’s portion, (chap. x. 14. Numb, xviii. 11.) because they were not members of his family.

Leviticus 22:11

But if the priest buy any soul (i. e. person) with

Leviticus 22:12

If a priesVs^ daughter also be married unto a stranger.’) Unto one that is not of the family of the priests. She may not eat of an offering of the holy things. She lost her right to eat of those holy things, which she did partake of while she remained a part of her father’s family; for that entitled persons to this privilege; insomuch, that a priest taking a wife out of another family, she might eat of them, because she was one with him, and therefore had more right than a servant. But, for the same reason, a priest’s daughter, married to a stranger, might not eat of them, because she was gone out of his into another fa^ mily.

Leviticus 22:13

But if the priest’s daughter be a widow,, or divorced, and have no child. If she had any children, they and she made another family; and they being begotten by a father who was not a priest, had no right to eat of the priest’s meat. But if she was left without children, then she was accounted still one of her father’s family, provided she returned (as it follows) to live with him. And is returned to her father’s house, as in Iter youth.] To be a part of his family, as she was before she married, (chap. x. 14.) She shall eat of her father’s meat.] Have the same privilege she had when she was a virgin. But there shall no stranger eat thereof] This seems,, as I said, particularly to relate unto her children, if she had any; who, being begotten by one of another family, were looked upon as strangers. (See ver. 10.)

Leviticus 22:14

And if a man. Who hath no right to them. Eat of the holy thing unwittingly.] Not knowing it to be a holy thing. Then he sltall put the fifth part thereof unto it.] Besides his sacrifice which he was bound to offer for his trespass. (See ver. 15.) And shall give it unto the priest, with the holy thing.] He could not give the priest the holy thing which he had eaten; but the meaning is, that he should make satisfaction to the. priest for the damage done to him, by paying him, the true worth of the thing, and the fifth part more of its value. (See ver. 16.)

Leviticus 22:15

And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer unto the Lord. This seems to refer to the persons beforenamed, none of which should presume to profane sacred things, by eating them when they did not belong to them. The priests seem also to be concerned in it, who were not to suffer them to cat such holy things; as it follows in the next verse. Or, if it entirely relate to the priests, the meaning is, they should not profane holy things, by eating them in their uncleanness, (ver. 9.) And one reason was, because the children of Israel, whose offerings these were, might be discouraged from bringing them to the Lord, when they saw them so profaned.'

Leviticus 22:16

Or suffer them. i. e. The people. To bear the iniquity of trespass, &c.] To fall under the punishment which God will inflict for their trespass, in eating things which do not appertain to them. The marginal translation refers this also wholly to the priests, in this manner, Or lade themselves with the iniquity of trespass in their eating holy things; viz. in their un cleanness, and with such persons (it may be added) as ought not to eat of them. For I the Lord do sanctify them.] These words seem to justify this last interpretation: (see ver. 9.)

Leviticus 22:17

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. The following laws, no doubt, were delivered at the same time with the former; because they still concern the same matter.

Leviticus 22:18

Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel. For they were all concerned in the perfection of the sacrifices, as they were in the perfection of the priests that offered them: (see chap. xxi. 24.), And say unto them, Wliosoever he be.] The Hebrew doctors say, that the phrase isch, isch (man, man, i. e. any man), is here used, as it was chap, xviii. 6. to shew that gentiles are comprehended under this law as well as Jews; as Mr. Selden observes out of the Gemara Babylon. Tit. Cholin. (See lib. iii.de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 4. p. 289.) Of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel.] They understand by strangers in Israel, such as they called proselytes of the gate; who were not circumcised, but had renounced idolatry, and joined themselves to the God of Israel. R. Levi ben Gersom takes perfect proselytes to be here meant (whom they called proselytes of righteousness), yet not excluding the other. That will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for alt his free-will-offerings.] See chap.vii. 16. Wliich they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt-offering;] If a gentile brought a peace-offering to the Lord, it was offered as a burnt-offering; and no meat-offering was permitted to be offered Avith it, as Maimonides observes: (see Selden in the place beforenamed, and ver. 25. of this chapter.) And Dr. Lightfoot gives a large account of it in his Temple Service, chap. 8, sect. 4.

Leviticus 22:19

Ye shall offer at your own will. So these words are commonly understood; that the sacrifices, both of Jew and gentile, should be spontaneous, as wxll as without blemish; though they will bear another sense, as I observed; chap. i. ver. 3. A male without blemish, of the beeves, and of the sheep, and of the goats.] See chap. i. ver. 3. 10. All burnt-offerings were to be males; though peace-offerings might be females, (chap. iii. 1. 6.) and so might sin-offerings also, (chap. iv. 32.) but all without blemish. For, as God accepted only some kind of creatures (viz. beeves, sheep, and goats, and no other of the herd), so he would have a choice to be made out of them, of the very best; as had been often before directed.

Leviticus 22:20

But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer. This general rule is here repeated, because he is going to specify what creatures they should account blemished. For it shall not be acceptable for you.] This seems to justify the exposition which I said might be given of that Digitized by microsoft (e) [chap. XXII. phrase in the foregoing verse, at your own will; or for your acceptation: (see upon chap. i. 3.) Vcr. 21. And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the Lord.] Which were either to obtain blessings, or to give thanks for them when they were obtained. To accomplish his vow.] It was usual to make such vows, for procuring from God what they desired, when they undertook a journey, or went to sea, or were sick, or in any danger, &c. an example of which we have in Jonah i: 1G. where we read, the mariners in a storm offered a sacrifice to the Lord, and made vows; i. e. they vowed a sacrifice to God (for they could not sacrifice on ship-board), when he had brought them to a safe port. And so Cicero speaks of certain mariners, who, being tossed in a tempest, vowed, if they gained their haven,’-’ Ei Deo, qui ibi essct, se vitulum immolaturos;" they would offer a calf to the god of that place. And Homer, in like manner, brings in the mother of Telemachus, vowing perfect hecatombs unto all the gods, if she might obtain her desires, (Odyss. xvii. ver. 59.) Or a free-will-offering.] This also was a peace-offering for obtaining blessings; not when they were in distress, I suppose, but in general to procure God’s favour to them and theirs.. In beeves, or sheep.] And likewise goats; for all these were allowed in peace-offerings, (chap. iii. 1. 6. 12.) It shall be perfect to be accepted.] That was accounted perfect which wanted none of its parts, nor had any defect in any of them. The heathen themselves did not think any other would be accepted, and therefore made a careful Choice of their sacrifices; as appears by those words of Virgil, (lib. iv. iEneid. ver. 57.) " Mactant lectas dc more bidentes." Which he calls elsewhere eximii, singled out as most excellent, (lib. iv. Georg. ver. 550.) €( Quatuor eximios prcestanti corpore tauros." And, that they might be such, there wasprobatio victimarum, proof made of sacrifices, as Pliny speaks, lib. viii. cap. 45. where he saith, such as were lame,, or had one leg shorter than the other, were rejected. Which probation was to be made by those that brought the sacrifices; but if they did not do their duty, the priest upon examination refused to admit them to be offered. There shall be no blemish therein.] This is an explication of what he means by perfect, which Solon (who seems to have taken the rites of religion from Moses) called \A0eXij; in tl;e explication of which word, Hcsychius, after several other expressions, concludes with this, 6 jo’jt* irXtovaZayv /x?’/rc Stwv t\ tov crw^aroc, which neither hath any part more or less than it should have. Julius Pollux (who reports this of Solon) hath a great number of other words to express the perfection required in sacrifices, which were to be apria) arofia, iXoicXijpa, vytrj, airttpa, iraftfizXri, apri/ieX//, jui) KoXo/3a, /xvjSi tfiirqpa, /iijSfc i)tcpo)Tr)pta<T^(va, /i*jS£ Staarpo^a, (lib. i. cap. 1.) some of which arc of the same signification, and serve only to shew how complete their sacrifices were to be.

Leviticus 22:22

Blind, or broken, &c. In this and the following verses he mentions twelve blemishes, which render any beast unfit for sacrifice; and the first is blind, under which the Hebrews comprehend that which the Latins call codes, a beast that hath but one eye. Or broken.] In the bones of the thighs, or the legs. Or maimtd.] Most take it for that ^Vhich the Latins call mutilum, that which laclceth any part. The LXX. took it more particularly for that which had its tongue cut out: the Hebrew doctors for that whose eye-brows or lips were slit, or cut off; which is nearer to the Hebrew word charnts than the Vulgar, which translates it only a scar. Or having a wen.] The Hebrews generally understand by the word jabbeleth, that which the Latins call verruca, a wart, or hard knob rising in the flesh; which is better than the Vulgar, who translates it papulas, which properly signifies pimples, pusJies, or wheals. But I think our translation cannot be mended; a wen being a more manifest deformity, and more common in beasts, than the other. Or scurvy.] This is that which the Greeks call ^wpa, the itch. Or scabbed.] Some take this word to signify the same with the Latin impetigo, i. e. a ring-worm or tetter, which spreads in the skin with a dry scab; though others take it for that which they call porrigo, for which I know no English word, unless it be the mange. The Hebrews take it for the porrigo Mgyptxaca, as Bochart observes, a scabby disease of this kind frequent among the Egyptians. Ye shall not offer these unto the Lord.] Not so much as present them to be offered in sacrifice. Nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the Lord.] Much less burn them upon the altar; for the Lord will not accept such sacrifices.

Leviticus 22:23

Either a btdlock or a lamb, that hath any thing superfluous. This word we had before (which we translate superfluous), chap. xxi. 18. but it properly signifies the inequality and disproportion that there is between those parts that are pairs, as the eyes or legs; and particularly when one of them exceeds its just bigness, ex. gr. when one leg is longer than it should be. Or lacking in his parts.] This word signifies just the quite contrary to the’ other; when one part is less, and more contracted than it should be; one leg supposed shorter than ordinary. So all the Hebrews understand these words, particularly Onkelos and Jonathan. That mayest thou offer for a free-will-offering.] A very learned person of our own takes these words for an exception to the foregoing general rule; that such defects as these two should not hinder the acceptation of a beast for a freewill-offering, though not for a vow; and it must be acknowledged, that is the most plain and simple sense. But the Jews, as he observes, particularly R. Solomon Jarchi, expound them otherwise, and will not have this offering to signify the sacrifice of such things at the altar, but the giving them to the priest for some sacred use; to be sold, for instance, for the reparation of the temple, for which they were accepted. (See Dr. Outram, lib. i. de Sacrifices, cap. 9. n. 2.) But for a vow, it shall not be accepted.] Free-will-offerings were much different from vows, there being no obligation upon them to offer the former, as there was to offer the latter: and a less perfect creature would be accepted in the one case, though not in the other. Vcr. 24. Ye shall not offer unto the Lord that tvhich is bruised, or cntshed, or broken, or cut.] That is, as the Hebrews interpret it (and so do the LXX. and the Vulgar), any beast whose testicles were compressed or bruised, &*c;

Leviticus 22:25

Neither from a strangers hand. By bennechar, the son of a stranger (as it is in the Hebrew), who is called (chap. xxv. 47.) a stranger and sojourner (viz. a gentile that dwelt among them), is meant a pious man of another nation, who had renounced idolatry, and abstained from blood, and observed the rest of the precepts of the sons of Noah (as they called them), but was not circumcised, which would have obliged him to the whole law of Moses. Such persons, being worshippers of the true God, were permitted to bring him sacrifices to be offered at his altar. (See Grotius, lib. i. de Jure Belli et Pacis, cap. 1. sect. 16. n. 3.) Shall ye offer the bread of your God from any of these.] Some-have taken these words, as if no sacrifice was to be accepted from a gentile, but only money, with which the priest might buy a sacrifice, and offer it for him. But this is confuted by ver. 18. and here it is evident, he only forbids them to accept of any sacrifice which had the forenamed blemishes from a gentile, who might think them not unacceptable, because the gentiles made no scruple to offer such as these last mentioned to their gods, though their laws, in some places, were against it. The bread of your God: the Hebrews understand hereby to be meant, only burnt-offerings; which Maimonides saith,. were accepted from a gentile, even burnt-offerings of birds, though he had not yet renounced idolatry. But they were not to accept from him peace-offerings or meat-offerings, or sacrifices for sins of ignorance, (chap. iv. 27.) or trespass-offerings, (mentioned chap. vi. 6.) nor was a burnt-offering to be accepted, unless it was a free-will-offering, or a vow, as Mr. Selden observes, lib. iii. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 4. But if he brought such spontaneous offerings as had the forementioned blemishes, the priest was to reject them (though the gentile might say they were such as had been accepted by his gods), or else he was to be scourged. So this law i3 briefly expounded by the Jews, when they reckon it up among their precepts, that a defective sacrifice is not to be accepted, no, not from the liand of a gentile; as he observes in the same book, cap. 7. where he discourses at large on this subject. And it need not seem strange a gentile should bring any such sacrifices (when their laws, as I observed before, required a choice to be made), for they were not so curious in their choice as the Hebrews; but, as Tertullian upbraids them, sacrificed enecta, tabidosa, et scabiosa, (Apolog. adv. Gcntcs, cap. 13.) which the better sort of people, perhaps, did not offer, but the vulgar did: and the priests made no scruple to accept them. Because.their corruption is in them, and blemishes be in themi],The word corruption seems particularly to. relate unto.the forementioned castration, for it signifies such a corruption as is the destruction of any member. See Bochart in his Hierozoicon, (par. ii. lib. v. cap. 4.) And ble?n* ishes relate to other defects, which made them unacceptable; twelve of which, as I said, are here mentioned; but the Hebrews look upon them only as examples and sped* mens of other the like defects, which they make in all to be fifty; as I observed before out of Selden, (lib. ii. de Success, ad Pontific. cap. 5.) Maimonides gives us a catalogue of them in his.treatise of Entrance into the Sanctuary, (cap. 7.) but to make up that full number, he is constrained to add these three, which have no example among the twelve here mentioned, viz. such as tremble by age, or by some disease, or are torn by wild beasts. Ver. 26; And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying.] These laws following being of the same nature, were in all likelihood delivered at the same time with the foregoing.

Leviticus 22:27

And when a bullock, or sheep, or goat is brought forth. These were the only beasts that were allowed to be sacrificed, (ver. 19.) Tlien it shall be seven days under the dam; and from the eighth day, and thenceforth it shall be accepted for an offering, &c] They were not fit for food when they were not seven days old, and therefore not for sacrifice; which was the bread or food of God, as it is called ver. 25. but this hath been sufficiently explained before, Exod. xxii. 30. Lshall only add, that 1 have since observed that P. Cunaeus hath briefly expressed the sense of Maimonides, which I there represented, (lib. iii. de Republ. Hebraeor. cap. 5.) and. that the Gentiles were so far from offering creatures so young, that they thought them fittest for sacrifice when they were two years old; as appears from the words of Virgil beforementioned, " Mactant lectas de more bidentes." Where Servius saith that bidentes were so called, because they were biennes, two years of age; for it was not lawful to sacrifice those, that were younger, nor those that were older.:

Leviticus 22:28

And whether it be cow, or ewe, ye shall not Mil it and her young both in one day. Lest the young one, saith. Maimonides, should happen to be killed before the dam; which would have given the greatest grief to her> (More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 48.) Any thing that looked like cruelty, therefore, was by this law banished from among them; for they might not so much as kill both the young and the dam on the same day, to offer them to God himself; of which he is here speaking.

Leviticus 22:29

And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the Lord. He had mentioned free-will-offerin gs and vows before, (ver. 21.) and now briefly touches upon the third sort of peace-offerings. (See chap. vii. 15, 16.) Offer it at your own will.] Male or female; of the herd, or of the flock, (chap. iii. 1. 7. 12.) Or the meaning may be (as hath been often said), he shall offer it in such a manner as that it be accepted* (See chap. i. 3.)

Leviticus 22:30

On the same day it shall be eaten, &c. See chap; vii. 15. Ver. 31- Therefore shall ye keep my commandments, and do them, &c] Because he had said before, (ver. 30.) and

Leviticus 22:32

Neither shall ye profane my holy name. This may refer either to what goes before, (that they should not make him and his service contemptible, by offering such things as were defective, &c.) or be taken as a precept by itself. And then the name of God was profaned three ways (as Mr. Selden observes), besides the most grievous of all, by blasphemy. Either when a man, for fear of death, violated the Divine law; or when he contemptuously and wantonly broke any precept; or when a man of great note, for knowledge and piety, gave a scandal to others by doing such things, as were not perhaps directly against the law, yet made him lose all his authority. (See lib. ii. de Jure Nat/et Gent.juxta Disc. Hebr. cap. 10.) But I will be hallowed among the children of Israel] Either by the observation of his laws, or by punishing those who transgressed them: for so this phrase is used, chap. x. 3. I am the Lord which hallow you.] Have separated you to myself, as a special people from all others, by laws different from theirs, and more excellent.'.

Leviticus 22:33

That brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be yottr God. And moreover distinguished you from all others, by singular benefits; particularly by delivering you from the most grievous slavery, that I might make you a happy people. I am the Lord.) When you remember my benefits, remember I am your sovereign, who expect your obedience.