Leviticus 5

for which these two kinds of sacrifices were to be offered: some saying that (he offences for which ascham was offer-; ed, were inferior to those for which chattdh was offered; which is the opinion of Maimonides in his More Nevochiin, (par. iii. cap. 46.) Others, on the contrary, think,* that the offences which were expiated by ascham, were more grievous than those, expiated by chattqh;. which is the opinion of no less a man than the deservedly-admired Bochartus, in his Hierozoicon, (par. i. lib. ii. cap. *33.) Where he adds, that the former sort of sins were committed knowingly; the other only ignorantly. For so the LXX: translate chattah by apiaprta, which seems to denote a. fault committed by error and mistake: but ascham by w\r)ppi\ua, which carries in it the notion of something premeditated and designed. But this is directly contrary to the very words of Moses here in this verse; which expressly speak of a trespass committed through ignorance. Aben Ezra therefore distinguishes these two much better, making chattali to signify a sacrifice which was made for the purging offences, committed through ignorance of the law; and asqluim for such as were committed through forgctfulncss of the law. But as he gives no proof of this, so he was sensible it was liable to exception; there being one of this sort of sacrifices mentioned vcr. 17. which he saw could; not be comprehended under this rule. Others therefore tjiink, the former hath respect to offences against God; and the latter to those against men; not observing, that the very, same sort of sin, which when it was known is called chattah, when it was doubtful is called ascham. From whence a very learned person of our own (now with God), who had much and long considered this matter, concludes, that an offence was peculiarly called ascham (which is a name for the sin, as well as for the sacrifice, as chattah also is) about which either a man was dubious (as in the following verso), or did a manifest damage to other men. There being no ascham (or trespass-offering) commanded to be offered by the law, but for such offences as were so committed against God, that their neighbours also were injured by. them. As in the case of those who did eat holy things, here mentioned, whereby the priests were damaged: and of tnosc mentioned vi.2 — 4. and such as lay with a bondwoman betrothed to another, (xix. 20, 21.) Which are all the cases belonging to this matter; excepting that of the Nazarite defiled by the dead, (Numb. vi. 12.) and of the leper, (iv. 12.) who were to be purged with a sin-offering, as well as with a trespass-offering: and therefore not to be considered in this matter. See Dr. Oulram, lib. i. de Sacrifieiis, cap. 13. n. 8. and Samuel Petitus’s Vance Lectiones, cap. 22. who hath said the same, but not so fully and distinctly. If this do not satisfy, yet it is plain the sacrifices which go by this name of trespass-offerings, and the rites also about them, were so different, that they are sufficient to distinguish them from the other. For none but rams and male-lambs were admitted for trespass-offerings, which were not used at all in any sin-offerings. And the blood of the sin-offerings was put upon the horns of the altar, (as was noted in the foregoing chapter, ver. 7. 18. 25.) but that of the trespass-offerings was sprinkled round about upon the altar, (vii. 2.) Sin-offerings also were offered for the whole congregation of Israel, (iv. 13.) but trespass-offerings only for private persons, which made Bonfrerius (I suppose) after a long discussion of this matter, to conclude, that the difference between sin and trespass consisted only in the sacrifices which were offered for them. See him upon the fourth chapter of this book; ver. 1.. [chap. VI. might have been made in my notes upon the two foregoing books of Moses, where many such passages occur, which I did not mention. And I should not havo done it now (being unwilling to swell this commentary with any thing that doth not tend to the explaining the sense of the text), did not the impious pamphlets that have lately been spread abroad against tho doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, make it necessary for mo to take this occasion to assert, that this doctrine was not unknown to the ancient Jews, as appears even from the frequent mention of the Word of live Lord in the Chaldee paraphrasts, where the Hebrew hath only Jehovah (or the Lord): for which I tan see no reason at all, if there had not boon a notion among them of more persons than one who was Jehovah. It doth not always, indeed, carry this signification in it; but there are very many places where, by the Word of the Lord, cannot be meant a word spoken by the Lord, or any thing else, but a person speaking or acting, Sccwho is the Ix)rd. There is a famous instance of it in Gen. xxviii. 20, 21. where Jacob’s vow is thus translated by Onkelos: Jacob vowed a: vow, saying, If the Word of the Lord will be with me, and keep me, &c. then shall the Word of the Lord be my God. Where tho Word of the Lord is so plainly made the object of his adoration, that it evidently shews they had a notion in those days when Onkelos lived (which was about our Saviour’s time), of more persons than one who was tho Lord. The Jerusalem Targum also speaks this so clearly, that one cannot but be something amazed to meet with such expressions in it, as those upon Gen. iii. 22. The Word of the Lord said, Behold, Adam whom I have created, is my only-begotten in this world; as I am the only-begotten in the heavens above. Which may fairly induce a belief that St. John used the known language of those times, when he declared our blessed Saviour’s Godhcadnndcr the name of the Word, who teas in the beginning with God, and was God, (John i.l.)

Leviticus 5:1

JL F a soul sin. In the manner following. And hear the voice of swearing, and is a tvitness*] Being adjured in the name of God, when he is called to bo a witness in a cause, to speak the truth. Forjudges had pow r cr to use such adjurations, that they might either draw a confession from an accused person, or a faithful testimony from a witness. Of the former of which there is a solemn form remaining in Scripture, (1 Kings xvii. 16. 2Chron. xviii. 15.) asGrotius hath observed upon Matt. xxvi. 63. And Dr. Hammond, upon the same place, hath observed instances of -the latter, (1 Kings vii. 31. Prov. xxix. 24.) And Micah’s mother seems by her own authority to have adjured her family, as they dreaded the vengeance of the Divine Majesty, to discover if they know any thing of the eleven hundred shekels of silver, which had been stolen from her, (Judg. xvii. 2.) In all which cases, men were bound to answer, as much as if they had taken a solemn path so to do. Insomuch, that our blessed Lord himself, being thus adjured, made an answer to the court of judgment, though before he had stood silent. Whether he hath seen or known of it] Whether he can say any thing of tho matter in question; cither from his own knoAvlcdgc, or from (he information of credible persons* If he do not utter it.] Declare what he knows, being thus adjured. Then he shall bear his iniquity.] Let him not think it is no offence to suppress the truth, when he is so solemnly admonished to declare it; but offer such a sacrifice for his sin, as is prescribed ver. 1. which belongs to all the following cases. The Jews make four sorts of oaths in their courts, or commerce one with another; as Mr. Scldenhath observed out of their writers; (lib. ii. deSyuedr. cap. 11. u. 8.) which arc, rash oatlis, vain oath$ (of which they also make four sorts), oatlis about trusts, (mentioned vi. 2, 3.) and this, which they call the oath of testimony; which they say every man was bound to give before the Sanhedrin when he was required. With this distinction between capital and pecuniary causes, that in, the latter a man was not bound to come and testify, unless he w f as cited by the plaintiff, or by the court; but in capital causes, and in such things as the law prohibited (as if a man saAV another smite his neighbour), he was bound to come of his own accord, without any summons, and give his testimony in court. Yet in this they make some difference, as may be seen in R. Levi Barzelonita, Praccept. cxx. They who would see more of these several sorts of oaths among the JeAvs, may find them considered in Sam. Pctitus’s Var. Lectioncs, cap. 16. And such a law as this there was anciently in other countries, that he who saw a crime committed, if he could not hinder it, should be bound, at least, to prosecute the malefactor. So the Egyptian lawgiver saith concerning theft, which a man saw committed, pqvvaat ye -n-avrwg w^t$ tqvq Xrftrrac, teal iinfZtivai ttjv 7rapovofJ.iav, to prosecute the law against that crime.. So Plato uses the same word hr&iivm, lib. iv. de Lcgibus, saying, that he who knew of such a fact, or had certain information of it, teal jirj b*e%$<lw, and doth not prosecute the person that did it, lv avroig evex&t^cu v6p.oiQ, let him be liable to the same punishment. (Sec Hen, Stcphanus’s Praefat. ad Fontes. Juris Civilis.)

Leviticus 5:2

Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, &c. The Hebrew doctors expound this of such persons, as, having touched any of.the unclean things, which are mentioned in this verse and in the next, came into the sanctuary, or did cat of the holy, things. Which they gather out of vii. 20, 21. and Numb. xix. 20. where cutting off is threatened to those, w!k> knowingly were so guilty. For otherwise, it was sufficient for a man’s expiation, who touched any unclean thing, to wash himself; and his uncleajincss lasted only, till the evening. (See chap. xi. a,nd Numb, xb;.) But why may it not be meant of those who neglected to wash themselves, who were to expiate that neglect by a sacrifice? He also shall beunclean and guilty*] Obliged to o/Fer the sacrifice prescribed (ver. 6.) for eating that which is. holy | (saith llasi) or coming into the sanctuary.

Leviticus 5:3

Or if he touch the uncleanncss of man, &c. Such uncleannesses as are mentioned in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fifteenth chapters of this book. And if it be hid from him, when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.] The words may he translated, Whether hedid itignorantly, or had some knowledge of it, and yet offended, he shall be obliged to offer the sacrifice mentioned, ver. 6.

Leviticus 5:4

Or if a soul swear. This the Hebrew doctors expound of that sort of oath which they call futile, or rash: when a man saith he hath done, or will do, or not do, a thing that is in has power to do. Pronouncing with his mouth.] It was to be uttered in words, and not merely thought in his mind. To do evil or good.] That he hath done a thing, or not done it, of whatsoever kind it be; or that he will, or will not do it. For these four kinds of oaths, of this sort, the Hebrew doctors make, two about things past; and two about things to come, (see Selden de Synedr. lib. ii. cap. 11. n. 8.) As if he swear that he did eat, or he did not eat of such a meat; did talk, or did not talk with Reuben or Simeon, &c. Rasi thinks by doing good is meant something for his own advantage, and, consequently, by doing evil, we are to understand afflicting himself, or punishing his servant, &c. But it may as well be understood generally of all things whatsoever, which are comprehended tinder the name of good and evil. i And it be hid from him.] He did not rightly understand, wr consider the thing about which he swaie; whether it was in his power, for instance, to do what he swore he would <Jo; or, whether he could lawfully do it; or if through forgetfulness he omitted to do what he might have done. Some interpret these and the following words, as those of the foregoing verse. * He shall be guilty in one of these.] Obliged to offer a sacrifice (as it follows, ver. 6.) if he have sworn rashly in any of the foregoing instances. *

Leviticus 5:5

And it shall be, wlien he shall be guilty in one of tliese things, that lie shall confess tliat he hath sinned in tlmt thing. When ho laid his hand upon the head of his sacrifice, this confession of his offence, it is likely, was made; without which his sacrifice would have been of no avail; so all the Hebrew doctors understand it; particularly Abarbinel, upon the sixteenth chapter of this book, saith, that confession was necessary to be added to every sacrifice for sin. For what is here commanded in this case, they resolve belongs to all sin-offerings, and trespassofferings* also. And, indeed, it was a notion among the heathen themselves, that an offering without prayer was to no purpose: " Quippe victimas ca>di sine precatione, non videtur rjeferre,nec Deos rit6 consuli," as Pliny speaks, (lib. xxviii. Nat. Hist. cap. 2.) and every one knows that confession was a part of prayer. (See, Dr. OutramdeSacrificiis, lib. i. cap. 15. n. 9.) Ver. G. And lie sliall bring his trespass-offering ttnto the Lord.] There is a difference between, a sin-offering (called diattah) and a trespass-offering (called aschavi), as is plain in the latter part of this chapter, compared with this. But here in this place they are not distinguished, for the nannj of trespass-offering is given to that which was really a sinoffering; as appears from the latter end of this verse, and from the two next, where this offering is expressly called a sin-offering. For his sin ivhich he hath sinned.] In any of the four forementioned cases; either by polluting the sanctuary, or eating holy things, or a rash oath, or by refusing to give his testimony, being adjured by the court of judgment to do it Thus R. Levi of Barcelona explains this, (Prgecept. exxi.) A female from the flock, a lamb, or a kid of the goats, for a sin-offering.] As the Hebrews call the sin-offering, mentioned in the foregoing chapter, (ver. 27.) a fixed sacrifice; so they call this higher or lower, being brought according to every man’s faculty or ability; some more, some less, as the forenamed author, and many other of their doctors observe; and is plain of itself from the following:verses. -And the priest shall make an atonement for him, concerning his sin.] By sprinkling the blood, and burning the fat of the sacrifice, as is directed, iv. 34, 35. -

Leviticus 5:7

And if he be not able to bring a lamb. See the mercy of God, saith the samB R. Levi, who was pleased to exact such small punishments for these sins, because it was’ very easy for men to fall into them. For we are more prone to offend in word than in deed: and without great caution it was scarce possible not to fall into such legal pollutions, as required this expiation. Then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, unto the Lord.] Who, though he would not exact a heavy punishment of them for these offences, yet would not suffer them to escape altogether unpunished; that they might not be presumptuous, but use due care and caution in their words and actions. So the same R. Levi represents the sense of this law, as if the Lord had. said, " I would not have such things done; but if any man by frailty commit them, let him repent with all his might, and set a guard upon Himself; and let him offer a sacrifice, which may imprint the remembrance of his guilt upon his heart; and preserve him that he may not hereafter offend/’ The one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering.] First, he was to have his peace made with God, by a sin-offering; and then his burnt-offering, or his gift, might be accepted, as Rasi observes; and is expressly ordered in the next verse, the priest shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first.

Leviticus 5:8

And wring off his headfromhis neck, &c. Or rather, nip it off with his nail, (as the Jews explain it, see i. 15.) so as not quite to separate it from the body. For that had been to make the sacrifice contemptible, (as R. Levi, of Barcelona, gives the reason of it, Praecept. cxxviii.)the bird looking more handsome with its neck still joined to the body, than without it. And it was fit the sacrifice, even of a poor man, should be as decent as possible; it being sufficient he thus suffered, without increasing his affliction by the moan and abject form of his sacrifice.

Leviticus 5:9

And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin-offering. Sac. Some of the blood, which ran out of itself, as the priest held it by the -neck, where he nipped it, he was to sprinkle upon the side of the altar. And then he was to press out the rest of the blood (when as much was ran out as would of itself, by that nip) at the bottom of the altar; where they were wont to pour out the blood of the sin-offering, (iv. 7: 18. 25. 34.) It is a sin-offering.] Therefore the blood was there pressed out: whereas, in burnt-offerings of a bird, we read only of pressing or squeezing out the blood at the side of the altar,

Leviticus 5:16

And he shall make amends for the harm he hath done in holy things, and shall add a fifth part thereunto, &c. Besides the compensation, mentioned in the foregoing verse, for the damage that was done, according to the valuation made by the priest, there was a fifth part more to be added thereunto, and given to the priest who had suffered the damage. *’. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass-offering, and it shall be forgiven him.’] The atonement was not made, nor forgiveness obtained, till full satisfaction for the wrong had been made.

Leviticus 5:17

Andifa sonlsin, and commit any of these things, &c. i\ e. Did cat any of the holy things beforementioned, which God forbade any but the priest to eat..Tliough he wist it not.] i. e. Be not certain whether they were holy, or no.; For the Hebrews generally call this ascham talui, a dubious trespass-offering: being in a matter about which a man was in suspense, whether he had offended or not. Yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.] He shall be obliged to offer this sort of sacrifice. * Which was ordained (saith R.,Levi Barzelon..Praecept. exxiii.) to make men cautious, t and fear to sin;, and to attend diligently in all their actions, that they transgressed not the laws of God.

Leviticus 5:18

, And he shall bring a ram without blemish, out of the flock, voith thy estimation, &c. The offering before appointed, (ver. 15, &c.) with this difference, only, that no. fifth part was in this case to be added, because it was not certain whether he had transgressed or no. * The priest shall make an atonement for him, concerning, his ignorance wherein he eired, and wist ii not.] Did not know # whether he had offended or not: which distinguishes this from the sin of ignorance mentioned ver.,15… Audit shall be forgiven him.] But if he afterward came to have a certain knowledge of his offence, he was not excused by this dubious offering (as Rasi observes), but was bound also to offer a sin-offering.

Leviticus 5:19

It is a trespass-offering. In this case a sacrifice* must be offered, as well as in a certain trespass..*. * He hath certainly trespassed against the Lord.] The words in the Hebrew are, ascham ascham lajhova; which, I think, should be translated, a trespass-offering certainly unto the Lord. That is, in this doubtful case, let him take a sure course, by offering the sacrifice here prescribed.; For though neither this sort of sacrifices, nor sin-offerings, were to be voluntary (which was proper only to tvhole. burnt-offerings and peace-offerings), yet the very suspicion of a guilt required a sacrifice. As for all those offences which might be committed hy men who had no sense.or. suspicion of them, they were expiated by the sacrifices, which were offered for the whole congregation, at certain. stated times: but no particular person was to offer either, i sin-offering or trespass-offering of his own accord, unless he knew or feared he had contracted some guilt. I cannot think fit to conclude this chapter, without taking notice how Jonathan paraphrases these last words of it; who, instead of saying he hath trespassed (as it is commonly translated) against the Lord, saith, against the name of the Word of the Lord. Which is an observation that t