Leviticus 6
PAT(i..15.) It is not said what was to be done with the flesh; but it is plain, from vi. 26. that the priest was to have it; the blood only being offered to God. Vcr. 1. JjLND the Lord spake unto Moses, faying.] What here follows belonging unto the same with that which \vcnt before, it is likely, was spoken at the same time. And these words signify, that the Lord further spake unto Moses, what concerned trespass-offerings.
Leviticus 6:2
If a soul sin, and commit a trespass. The same sort of expression is used in the beginning of this law, -con* cerning the trespass-offering, ver. 15. Which some translate prevaricate, or act insincerely. Against the Lord.] The Sovereign of the world; who was peculiarly affronted by the following sins; especially by swearing falsely, which was calling him to bear witness’to a lie. And lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep.] Deny the trust which was committed to him;* and that when he was brought upon his oath to deliver the truth, as appears by the next verse. For this is the instance of that sort of oath, which the Jews call the oath about a thing deposited, (see v. 1.) For there being no witness of what was done between two friends or neighbours, who trusted one another in such matters, but God Alone; they appealed unto him, from whom nothing could be hid. And this oath, the Jews say, was governed by another, which Ihey call the oath of testimony: which a mart was not bound to give, unless ho were adjured to it by the court of judgment: and so it was in the oath about the things deposited; he was not guilty who was adjured by private persons, and denied it; but he that denied it before the court. So they resolve in Ilalicah Olam, par. iv. cap. 2. Or in fellowship.] To carry on a common trade, in jointstock; or (as others understand it) in any thing for which he gave his hand unto another: for so the Hebrew words are, putting of the hand, as contracts are oft-times made: which if a man afterward denied, he fell under the gnilt here mentioned. And there is some reason to think, that this is much of the saime nature with the former; because, when he speaks of restitution, (ver. 4.) this is not repeated. And therefore it seems to be included in that which was deposited with another: whether it were money, called’ here pikkadon; or any other gefods, called tesumah jad. They that.would see more opinions about these words, putting of the hand, may consult Const. L’Empercur, in his annotations on Bava kama, cap. 9. sect. 7. Or in a thing taken away by violence.] That is, by robbery or’stealth, as the word gazel signifies. For theft not being punished among the Jews with death, they tendered an oath to those who were accused or suspected of it, to clear themselves from the imputation, (Exod. xxii. 11.) Or hath deceived his neighbour.] Wronged him by false accusation, as the Hebrew word hoschok seems to import Which St. Jerome always translates calumny; as the word haschak he translates to calumniate. It signifies also extortion; and Rasi takes it for defrauding a hireling of his vrages. 1
Leviticus 6:3
Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it. Deny that he found a thing lost; which in truth came to his hand. And sweareth falsely.] They put men to their oath in this case also, when there was a just cause of suspicion; as they did in’matters of theft. In any of all these.] In any of these sorts of things; as the Hebrew may be translated. Tliataman doth.] Wherein one man dealeth with another: or which frequently happen, as Grotius thinks this plirase signifies; in his annotations upon 1 Cor. x. 13. Sinning therein.] By these means contracting a guilt.
Leviticus 6:4
Then shall it be, because he h&thsinned, and is guilty. The last Words should rather be translated, and’ acknowledges his guilt. For so this word ascham, gfnilty, ought to be expounded, as I shewed iv. 22, 23. to make a clear sense of tho law there mentioned. And it would otherwise be superfluous here: for when a man hath sinned so grievously as the foregoing verses suppose, who could doubt of his guilt? The true meaning therefore is, when he hath sinned (so the first words may be translated) by committing any of those things forettientioncd, and acknowledges £w guilt, he shall restore that which he took away violently, &c. And this most plainly reconciles the contradiction, that otherwise would be between this law and that in Exod. xxii. 1. 7. 0. where a man that stole an ox ifc condemned to restore five oxen, and four sheep for one; and if ho delivered money to another to keep, and it was stolen, the thief was to pay double; whereas here, one simple rcsti- Microsoft ® CHAP. VI.] UPON LEVITICUS, 3G1 tution is exacted, with an addition of a fifth part. The reason is, because in Exodus he speaks of those thieves who were convicted by witnesses in a court of law; and then condemned to make such great restitution: but here of such as, touched’with a sense of their sin, came voluntarily and acknowledged their theft, or other crime, of which nobody convicted them, or at least confessed it freely when they were adjured; and therefore were condemned to suffer a lesser punishment, and to expiate their guilt by a sacrifice. See I/Empereur upon Bava kama, cap. 7. sect. 1. and cap. 9. sect. 1. 5 7. where he observes very judiciously, that this interpretation is confirmed by Numb. v. 7. where the first words may be translated, If they shall confess their sin that they have done, &c. And this seems to be more reasonable than the account which Maimonides ogives of this matter in his More Nevoch. par.iii. cap. 41. where, expounding these words, which he took violently, of an open robber, he gives these reasons why he was notpunished so much as a thief, but restored only the principal, with a fifth part; because rapine happens seldom, but theft often; for it cannot be committed so easily as theft; and is done openly and manifestly, whereas theft is committed more^ecretly: so that a man may be aware (he imagines) of a robber, and defend his goods against him, better than against a secret thief. Yet this is better than the account’ of R. Johannes f. Zachei, (mentioned by J. Cochupon the Gemara of the Sanhedrin. cap. 7. p. 271.) that a merethief fears man more than God; but a robber fears both alike.
Leviticus 6:5
Of all that about which he hath sworn falsely, he shall even restore it in the principal. The same numerical thing which he took away, if it still remain in his possession unaltered; or else the just price of it: as H. Levi Barzelonita expounds it, Praecept. exxv. And the Jews pretend to such scrupulosity in this matter, thatthey say a man, who was to have a share in his father’s estate, from whom he liad taken something by robbery, was to restore it before the division was made, and not by detaining it to make his share greater than it ought “to be. (See Bava kama, cap. 9. sect. 9.) And shdlladd the fifth part more thereto.] The Jews have many subtilties about this, as maybe seen there, sect. 0, 7. The plain sense is, that he should compensate the loss which the right owner might have sustained (by wanting the use of his goods so long as the other had detained them in his hand), by adding a full fifth part of the principal, as an amends for the wrong. Yet, if he had really forgotten that he had found such a thing as he was charged withal, at the time he denied it upon oath, he was -not bound to pay the fifth part more, nor to offer the expiatory sacrifice, though he really was possessed of the thing; as Mr. Selden observes, lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 11. p. 506. And give it nnto him to ichom it appertained.] If he hath stolen from a man the smallest piece of money, ivhich the Jews call peruta ) and had forsworn it, they fancy ho was bound to Testore it to the owner himself; though he lived as far off as Media: and it would not suffice to give ittohisson,or his attorney, whom he had left to act for him. Yet they are something humorsome in these absurdities, for they do not tie a man to go so far to pay the fifth part; though in a case where it was more than a peruta. (Seo Bava kama, cap. 9. sect. 5, G.) In the day of his trespass-offering.] Or, in the day of his vol. i. ZBQ Dy trespass; that is, as soon as he acknowledged his guilt, as this word I shewed ver. 4. is to be interpreted. And this agrees with what our blessed Saviour requires; (Matt. v. 23.)
Leviticus 6:6
And he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord, a ram ivithont a blemish. This the ^Hebrews call an offering for a certain guilt; as that v. 15, was for a dubious. With thy estimation, &c] R. Levi of Barcelona interprets it, a ram worth two shekels, (Preecept. exxiv.)
Leviticus 6:7
And the priest shall make an atonement for him, &c. The offender was not to think he ^vas cleared by making restitution, and adding the -fifth’part, whereby his, neighbour might well be satisfied: but withal, this sacrifice was necessary for his expiation, without which no satisfaction was made to the Divine Majesty. The “Jews themsdves also think that this was prescribed, to make them more Sensible of their sin, and to render it -more odious unto them; as the same author observes.
Leviticus 6:8
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Here the’Hebrews begin a new section of the law, as well as a new chapter (as we call it), for the first seven verses plainly belong to the matter of the foregoing chapter. And it is reasonable to think,*that the following precepts were given at a distinct time from the former, (see iv. 1.) being about a different matter. For having declared what offerings the people should bring to the Lord, he now gives instructions to the priests, how they should manage the several offerings that were brought.
Leviticus 6:9
Command Aaron and his sons, saying. As before he bade Moses speak unto the children of Israel, (Lev. i. 2. iv. 2.) because the laws he then gave concerned them: so now he bids him command Aaron and his sons what to do; and acquaints them with the laws, that is, the rites they should observe in offering the several sacrifices before directed to be made. Tliis is the law of the burnt-offering.] He mentions that first, which was first delivered, and was the principal offering, being purely in honour of God; whereas the other was occasioned by men’s sins, or the benefits he had bestowed on them. It is the burnt-offer ingJ] He explains what burnt-offering he chiefly means, viz, the daily sacrifice: which was the principal burnt-offering, according to which all other offerings of that kind were to be regulated., Because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning.] Or, for the burning xipon the altar, &c. This was the reason of its name, because it was burning on the altar from the evening (at which the Jews began their day) till the morning. For which purpose the priests watched all night, and put the sacrifice upon the altar piece by piece, that it might be consumed by a slow and gentle fire. As for the morning sacrifice, it is not here mentioned, because it was consumed “by a quioker fire; that there might be room for other sacrifices that were commonly offered after it, (as appears from ver. 12.) and were only offered in the morning, notat night. But if there were no other sacrifices to succeed it in/the morning, then, it is very likely, that it was also kept burning till the evening sacrifice; that God’s altar might always have meat upon it. And the fire of the altar shall be burning in it.] Or, For the fire of the altar, &c. So it should be translated: unless 3A [chap, VI. we translate the last word notinit, but by it. And the fire of the altar shall be burning (i. e. be fed or maintained) by it.
Leviticus 6:10
And he shall offer the second for a burnt-offering, according to the manner. Prescribed in tho first chapter, ver. 15.. And the priest shall make an atonement for him, &c] Some gather from hence, that the burnt-offering was also an expiatory sacrifice. But it is so plainly distinguished from it, that these words seem to mo to relate only to the foregoing offering, (ver. 8, 1).) Though this may be concluded from hence: that the sin-offering was not accepted for his expiation; unless this burnt-offering followed, as a thankful acknowledgment made to God for his goodness. Ver, II. But if he be not able to bring tivo turtle-doves, or two young pigeons.] This was still a more merciful provision for the poor; who were not to be so ambitious of offering a beast or a bird, as not to content themselves with offering the smallest thing that God would accept. Soil. Levi, of Barcelona, observes, that God having such compassion on men’s poverty, it did not become them to strain themselves to offer more than they were able; for so they might have been tempted to steal. Yet, if, after a man had set aside a little money to buy this quantity of fine flour, his estate was bettered, he was then bound (as Maimonides saith, in the treatise called Schegagoth) to add so much to it, as would buy the birds before prescribed. And in like manner, if he had designed to buy birds, and on a sudden grew richer, he was to procuro a lamb.or. a kid. On the contrary, if a man had set apart money to buy a bullock for his sin-offering, and unexpectedly grew poor, he might buy two turtles, or young pigeons, and by them redeem his money so consecrated, &c. (cap. 10.) Then he that hath sinned shall bring for his offering a tenth part of an epluxh of fine flour, &c] Neither more nor less; which was but a small quantity, (see Exod. xvi. 36.) because God would not have his creature oppressed, as the same author observes, (Praecept/cxxix.)’ He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon.] In commiseration of his poverty, God required only a little flour, which every one might easily get, to offer without any oil to it, which was more costly; and also had something of magnificence in it (kings and priests being anointed), and therefore not becoming the meanness, or the grief and humility, of the person that brought this offering. For which reason frankincense was also omitted, being a pleasant thing; and not fit to be added to an offering for sin: which was offensive to God. To this purpose the same It. Levi, in the same place. And we find this imitated also by the heathen; for Pliny saith, in his preface to Vespasian before his Natural History, " Mola tantum salsa litant, qui non habent thura.” • And the ptriest shall put on his linen garment.] Mentioned Exod. xxviii. 40. And his linen breeches shall he put npon his flesh.] To cover his secret parts, as appears from Exod. xxviii. 42. And take up the ashes, which the fire hath consumed with the burnt-offering, &c] Or rather, When the fire hath consinned the burnt-offering on the altar. For the word aschar, which we here translate which, signifies alsotv/ten; and is so translated by us, iv. 22. Or else the sense must be, Tlie ashes into which the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering. Or, to make good our present translation, a few words must bo added, in this manner, The ashes (of the wood) which the fire hath consumed with tlie burnt-offering. And he shall put them beside the altar.] On the east part of it, as far as might be from the most holy place. (See i.lG.) For this was most suitable to the glory of the house of God (saith R. Levi of Barcelona), and the fire would burn better, when the altar was cleared from the ashes.
Leviticus 6:11
And he shall put off his garments,,. Those beforenamed, and put on other garments. It is a question among the Jews whether he mean his common raiment, or some other garments, not holy, and yet not quite common, but of a middle nature. It is most likely that the carrying the ashes out of the tabernacle, being not a holy action, as they were not to perform it in their priestly, i. e. sacred garments, wherein they took them from the altar; so they did it in the common habit, which they wore when they did not minister. Yet Rasi thinks this was not absolutely necessary, but only fitting and seemly: it being indecent to do this work in the same garments wherein they served at the altar. And the ashes having been upon the altar, there are those (as I said) who fancy this was not a work fit to be performed in their common garments; and therefore have devised a habit of less dignity than those garments wherein they ministered, which they used when they carried out the ashes. Thus Maimonides himself, and others, mentioned by Mr. Selden, lib. iii. de Syned. cap. 11. n. 6. where he likewise observes, that Chiskuni is of opinion, that such of the family of the priests, as were both excluded from their ministry in the sanctuary, and from wearing the holy garments, by reason of some defect in their bodies, were permitted to perform this office of carrying away the ashes. And carry forth the ashes without the camp, into a clean place.] Sec iv. 12. The forementioned Rasi will have it, that they needed not to take away all the ashes every day; but only a shovel-full, which they laid beside the altar. And when the hollow place of the altaT was so full, that there was no room to lay on the wood, they were bound to empty it, and carry all the ashes away.
Leviticus 6:12
*Then shall he bring it to the priest. Confessing his sin to him (as is ordered, ver. 5.) for which he desired this offering might be accepted.. And the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof] For an acknowledgment of his fault, and as a caution to him hereafter. And the fire upon the altar shall be burning in it, it shall not be put out.] This precept is repeated again in the next verse; as it was mentioned once before, (ver. 9.) For which there is a just reason, as Abarbinel makes account. For in the ninth verse he requires, that the wood for the evening sacrifice should be so ordered and attended, that the fire might be kept in till the morning. And then, here, in this verse, he requires there should such care bo used in taking away the ashes, that the fire might still remain, and not be extinguished. After which, speaking of the morning sacrifice, in the latter part of this verse, he requires in the next, (ver. 13.) that such a quantity of wood should be laid on the altar, when they offered it, that the fire might be kept in till the evening sacrifice; or, that if there were any extraordinary sacrifices brought besides the daily burnt-offering, the priests should still add more wood, that the fire might not be put out by that means, but be able to devour them. And the priests shall burn wood on it every morning, 8cc] The Hebrew word for wood being in the plural number, R. Levi of Barcelona concludes there were more bundles than one brought in every day. And from this place (and i. 7.) he gathers there were three. The first of which he calls the great heap; with which the daily sacrifice, and the rest, for which there was occasion, w r ere offered: of w r hich he thinks Moses speaks in the ninth verse of this chapter. The second was lesser, which was laid at the side of the other, that they might have coals for the burning incense: and this he thinks intended here. And the third was merely to keep in the fire perpetually; of which he thinks Moses speaks in the next verse. The Misna also tells us, that there being seven gates to the great court of the sanctuary, three on the north, and as many on the south, and one at the east; the first on the south side was called the gate of burning: because at that gate they brought in the wood, which was to preserve the fire perpetually on the altar: (see Codex Middoth, cap. 1. sect. 4.) And he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace-offerings.] This fat af the peace-offerings was to be burnt together with the burnt-offering, and not separate from it: by which means the burnt-offering was the sooner consumed, and more room was made for other occasional sacrifices.
Leviticus 6:13
And the fire shall be ever burning upon the altar. This fire was not kindled by the priests, but by God himself; who sent it from heaven to consume the first sacrifice that was offered by Aaron, (ix. ult.) From which time they were bound to take care, that it never w r ent out; that so their sacrifices might be constantly offered by celestial fire: because it was the continuation of that fire which came from heaven, by a continual addition of fuel, whereby it was preserved. And so it continued, as the Jews affirm, till the captivity of Babylon; and after it, as some of them would have us believe (who fancy it was preserved in a pit, by the care of some-religious priests, till their return), though against the common tradition among them, which is, that there was no sacred fire in the second temple; for they reckon this among the five things which were wanting there, and had been in the first. And as for the constant continuance of this fire, there was care taken that wood should bo laid up in the temple for the maintenance of it: so in order thereunto, there was a certain set time, when the people were obliged to carry wood thither; which made a kind of festival, called by Josephus Zv\o
Leviticus 6:14
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Here begin the orders which were given to Moses about another sort of sacrifice, near of kin to the former: but delivered, it is likely, at some other time; after he had written down the foregoing laws about sin-offerings. (See iv. I.)
Leviticus 6:15
Jf a soul commit a trespass. In the.Hebrew this is a different phrase from what hath been hitherto used, signifying another sort of guilt. And sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord.] By applying to his own private use any thing that was dedicated to God, (as Maimonides expounds it in his More. Nevochim, par. iii. cap. 46.) which might be committed in the payment of tithes, and in first-fruits, and the first-bora of cattle, or meddling with that part of the sacrifice which belonged to the priest alone. Which things he that com-, mitted presumptuously, was to be cut off, (Numb. xv. 30.) but if ignorantly, he was to do as here is directed in this verse. But these words seem to be particularly restrainedto the last of those things now mentioned, (eating any part of the sacrifice which belong to the priest alone, xxii. 14.) and the end of this law (as R. Levi Barzelonita speaksy Pnecept. exxii.) was to excite fear and reverence in alL those who approached unto holy things. Then he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flocks.] As a sheep was a more noble species among creatures than a goat; so a ram wan of a greater value among sheep, than a female: and. therefore this sacrifice was more costly than the sin-offering mcrir tioned ver. 6. With thy estimation.] Besides his sacrifice, he was to. make satisfaction in money, according as the priest should esteem the damage. For that is the meaning oftvith thy estimation; according to the value thou shalt set upon the thing, which he applied to his own use. By shekels of silver, ] At least two shekels, as the Jewish, doctors resolve..”.:; - After the shekels of the sanctuary.] See Exod. xxx. 13. The Jews w T ere thus confined to these rites, and such as are mentioned ver. 8, 9. in the rest of these prescriptions, that there might be no room for idolatrous ceremonies; nor might men among themselves be left at liberty to invent impious or frivolous ways of worship: and that the obedience of good men might be also exercised in these minute matters; and the contempt of wicked people be the more apparent, in refusing to comply with these known laws of God. For a trespass-offering.] The Hebrew word ascham, which we translate trespass-offering, is so near of kin to chattah, which we translate sin-offering, that one of them is sometimes used for the other, as I observed upon ver. 6. yet there is a real difference between them: though it bo not easy to determine wherein it consists. For the greatest men differ in their opinion about the quality of the offences, And he shall take of it his handful of the flour of the meat-offering, &c] According to the prescription in the second chapter, ver. 2. where all this verse is explained. Ver. 1G. And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat.] If they had no pollution upon them, xxii. G. (See chap. ii. 3.) The reason of the precept was, (as R. Levi Barzel. observes, Praccept. exxxiii.) that it preserved the dignity of the sacrifice to have it eaten only by the priests: and by them (I may add) only in the holy place, and not carried out from thence, as it here follows. With unleavened bread shall it be eaten.] There is nothing in the Hebrew text to answer unto the word with; which makes the sense unaccountable, that otherwise is easy and natural. If wc translate it as the Hebrew words plainly signify, unleavened it shall be eaten, sec x. 12. In the holy place.] There was a room in the court of the priests, where they ate these holy things, as Kimchi observes upon Ezck. xlii. Which maybe confirmed out of Numb, xviii. 10. where the most holy place can signify nothing but the court of the priests, as L’Empereur rightly understands it in his Annot. upon Middoth, cap. 2. scct.G. -In the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it.] As the priests did cat it in their own court, so their male children had place in the court of the Israelites >vhcrcin to cat it, (x. 12, 33.) And they arc all said to cat Digitized by* before the Lord, because this was a paTt of the tabernacle: as was also the court of the women, where there was a placefor the priests’ daughters to eat, as well as their sons, of the firstlings that were offered to the Lord, (Numb, xviii. 19.)
Leviticus 6:17
It shall not be baken with leaven. There were two little rooms at the east gate of the couTt of the temple, called the gate of Nicanor; one of which was a vestry for the priests to put on their garments when they went to minister; and the other was for baking this flour, and that mentioned ver. 21. So they tell us in Middoth, cap. 1. sect. 4. And therefore it is ordered to be baken without leaven, because it was a part of the Lord’s sacrifice: which being offered unleavened, (chapter second, ver. 11.) the remainder must needs be unleavened also, because the whole *. was God’s; and the priests could have it no other ways than it was offered unto him. I have given it to them for their portion of my offerings madebyfire.] That is, of the ^a^q^mngrsbeforementioned. It is most holy, &c] This is, the reason why it was not to be carried to be eaten out of the holy place. (See chap. ii. ver. 10.) As is the sin-offering, and as the trespass-offering.] See ver. 26. and vii. 6.
Leviticus 6:18
And the priest shall make an atonement for him, as touching the sin that he hath sinned in one of these. With one of these three forementioned sacrifices: either with a lamb, or with two turtles or young pigeons, or with fine flour. For, as Itasi hath observed, there are three sorts of men; rich, poor, and very poor: and so three sorts of offerings are prescribed in this chapter, suitable to each of their abilities. And the remnant shall be the priest’s, as a meat-offering.] See chapter the second, ver. 2, 3. where the whole meatoffering (except one handful) is given to the priest: who had nothing at all of some of the sin-offerings, mentioned in the foregoing chapter, (ver. 12. 21.) which were entirely consumed.. All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it.] And none but they, because it was a thing most holy. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations.] That is, as long as the law about sacrifices shall last. Every one that touches them shall be holy.] According to this translation of these words, the meaning is, that it was. not sufficient to be descended of priests, and to be males,, but they were also to bo free from any legal defilement, who were admitted to eat of this offering, (xxii. 6.) But these very words, which wc here translate every one, in the twenty-seventh verse wc translate whatsoever:’ and then the meaning is, Every thing that toucheth them sliall be made holy by them. That is, the very dishes into which such holy things were put, or the spoons, or knives, wherewith they were eaten, were never -to be employed to any other use. (See Exod. xxix. 37.)
Leviticus 6:19
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. At the same time the Lord gave direction about another offering,, near of kin to the former; but not yet mentioned. l
Leviticus 6:20
This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which, they shall offer unto the Lord. The Jews call this a mincha of initiation; which every high-priest, and every other priest (as they understand it), were bound to offer, when they were consecrated; and the high-priest to continue every day as long as he lived. So AbaTbinel,;in his pre-, face to this book, (sect. 2.) reckoning the various sorts of meat-offerings, makes this the fourth kind; which the highpriest offered every day, and every other priest once in his life, viz. when he first was admitted to minister at the altar, at the age of twenty years. For both these meat-offerings, saith he, arc comprehended in this verse. But it may as well be understood only of Aaron, and his successors in tho priesthood, of whom the following words seem to speak,; and not of the common priests., 4. ,-In the day when he is anointed^] The Hebrew word bejom may be translated from the day; and so the Jews understand it, that he was to make this oblation, not only upon the day of his consecration, but ever after (as I said),, 3A2 [chap. vj. every day, as long as he continued in the priesthood. And so the next words seem to explain it. The tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, for a meat-offer ing perpetual; half thereof in the– morning, and half at night.] The high-priest, saith.Joseph^ (lib. iii. Antiqicap. 10.) sacrificed twice every day at his own charges: and then he descrihes this very offering, which was. distinct from that which attended the daily burnt-offering; as appears by the quantity of this, meat-offering, and by the manner of ordering it. I?or; that. seems to have been raw flour, mixed with oil; but this baken,,as it-follows.in.the next verse. (Sec Exod. xxix, 40, 410 The reason why it is here mentioned, is, because it was a mincJia (or meat- °ff e ring), of whose rites Moses is treating; and this is an exception from the rest.
Leviticus 6:21
In a pan shall it beinade with oil. With three logs of oil; as the Jews determine. And tvhen.it is baken.] See ver..17. Thou.shalt bring it in.] Unto the altar. And the baken pieces shalt thou offer, &c.] If it was a* meat-offering of the high-priest, it was divided into twelve pieces (as Maimonides saith); if of a common priest (for they will have both to be included in this law) then into ten pieces; which were so exactly divided; that half of them were offered in the morning, and the other half in the evening. And the handful of frankincense (which they say. was offered with them) was, in like manner divided, and burnt on the altar, (Maase Korban, cap. 13.)
Leviticus 6:22
And.the priest of his sons, that is. anointed in his stead, shall offer it. What he. had said of Aaron and his sons in general, (ver. 20.) he now particularly requires.of every son of his, that should succeed him in his. office;. For which there was the greater necessity, because (as R. Levi of Barcelona understands it, PraeCcpt. exxxiv.) the high-priest was an ambassador between the Israelites and their heavenly Father (by whom their prayers were offered to God, and who made reconciliation for them), and therefore should be bound, in all reason, to offer a perpetual sacrifice twice every day, for the constant needs of the congregation; and to apply his mind to this (as he speaks), that he and they might be the better for it. It is a statute for ever unto the Lord.] As long as that priesthood continued. It shall be wholly burnt.] In which it differed from other meat-offerings, as will appear in the next verse.
Leviticus 6:23
For every.meat-offering for the priest.”. Or of the priest. This. may seem to relate to every common priest; who were not all bound to offer this sacrifice every day, but only he who did it in the name of all the rest, viz. the priest;who offered the.daily burnt-sacrifice. He may be. well thought to Jiave been obliged to this; by which means this meat-offering was offered to God everyday* by one or other of them, and never omitted. But Abarbinel (as. I noted before, ver. 20.) thinks, that only the high-priest was bound to offer this meat-offering every day; and every other priest once in his life, viz; when he began his ministry. Shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten.] The priests had all.the meat-offerings whicfowexe.broughtby the people, except one handful which was offered to the Lord. (See chapter second, ver. 2, 3.) But of their own meat-offerings they were not to taste, but wholly burnt them on the altar. For it had not been seemly for 1;m, both to offer unto God, and to eat of it as if it were his own; as Maimonides speaks, (par.iii. More Ncvoch. cap. 46.) or, as R. Levi Barzclonita gives the reason, (Praecept. cxli.) the scope of the sacrifice being to raise the mind of him that offered it unto God, it was not fit he should think of eating any part of his own offering; which would have taken his miftd.off from God.
Leviticus 6:24
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. He added further several things concerning other offerings; which perhaps were delivered, at the same time with the foregoing; being still concerning the priests, (sec ver. 8, 9,) And therefore the next verse begins thus, “Speak unto Aaron and his sons, saying,”
Leviticus 6:25
This is the lawofthe sin-offering. That is; for particular persons: that for the prtests themselves, being. governed by another law. Eorit is plain, that, in the fourth chapter, he distinguishes: the sin-offeiing into two. kinds: one, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary, and the flesh of it burnt entirely without the camp, (ver. 7, 8, &c. and here ver..30.) and another, whose blood was not carried into the sanctuary; the flesh of whith the priests were to eat, as is here directed. Lithe place where the burnt-offering is killed, shall the sin-offering be killed before the Lord.] See iv. 24.. 29. 31; It is most holy.] This is the reason of what follows, that none might eat;of it but those who were holy to the Lord. Ver..26.. The priest that offereth it for sin, shall eat it.] The flesh of this sin-offering fell to the share of him who offered the sacrifice.that day; and to his male children: though he might invito any other priests, and their sons,. to partake with him; if, hepleased; as appears from ver. 29. I need not add, that the immurim, as the Hebrews call them; were excepted: that is, the fat, 8oc. mentioned iii. 9, 10. iv. 2G. which were to be wholly burned upon the altar. In the holy place shall it be. eaten, &c] See ver. 16. For it being 7nost holy (as the words are in the conclusionof the foregoing verse), it was to be eaten inthe holy place; and that the same day and night when it was offered; and none of it to be kept till the morning. Whereas some of the peace-offerings. (which they called the lighter holy things) might be eaten the next day,,(vii. 16.) See Maimonides, More Nevochim, par, iii. cap. 46. This seems to have been imitated by the heathen, who required that their most holy sacrifices should not be carried out of the temple; as the scholiast upon Aristophanes’s Equites observes, concerning the sacrifices, offered to Ceres and Proserpina: ovk l%rjv ra.Ovoutva AyuriTtpt teal Hzpauppvy t£o>
Leviticus 6:27
Whosoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy. See ver. 18. And zvhen there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment.] This is commonly, understood of the priest’s garment, who alone, sprinkled the blood- But his garments being holy, the blood that might chance to fall upon them was not thereby at all dishonoured: and therefore (if this be the meaning) we are to understand, that the garments would appear less venerable,.when they were spotted with blood; and upon that account were to be washed. If we take it for the garment of him that brought the sacrifice, which when it.was killed, the blood might chance to spirt upon his clothes; then the washing of them was out of reverence to the blood; which, being holy, was not microsoft ($ CHAP- VII.] UPON LEVITICUS; to remain upon a common garment. “Which way.soever. it be interpreted, the intention, it is manifest, was to preserve in their, minds an awful regard to God, and to whatsoever belonged unto his service.. Thou shall wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.] Where there was a room (after the temple was built) which was called lischath hagullah, the chamber of the spring, or well, out of which water; was drawn -for the use of the court of the sanctuary. And there, it is probable, these garments were washed; (See Codex Middoth, cap. 5. sect. 3.) Ver; 28.- But flie earthen vessel loherein it is sodden shall be broken.] For it being, very porous, might so doeply imbibe, a. tincture from the flesh, that it could not be washed out; but the smell of it might remain, a long time. And being of a small value, it was no great loss to haveJt broken; rather than any thing that was holy, remaining* in it, bo profaned. What became of the broken shreds* of these earthen vessels, is a doubt among the Hebrew doctors; because it was neither fit to throw them out. in a profane place, nor yet seemly, to. heap them up in the sanctuary: and therefore they fancy the earth opened and swallowed them up, as a great man in this kind of learning (J. Wagenseil) hath observed uponrthe Mischna of Sota, cap.. 3. But they might have rather said, that they werethrown abroad into a clean place, after they were broken into small bits, or crumbled to powder; just as the ashes were that came from the altar, which wasa holy place. If it be sodden in a brazen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed hi water.] Nothing: could” so easily sink into this, being a solid. metal: bntrtvhatsoever stuck to it might be rubbed out and cleansed by washing. From this verse, compared with other places, it seems apparent, that nothing was roasted in the sanctuary, but only boiled; Sowe find the peace-offerings (mentioned 1 Sam. ii. 13, 14, 15.) were constantly sodden; and all other holy offerings, except the paschal lamb (which they roasted at home), 2 Chron. xxxv. 13. And after their return from the captivity of Babylon, the same is intimated in the last verse of the prophecy of Zachariah.
Leviticus 6:29
All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy. See ver.* 16. and 20.
Leviticus 6:30
And no sin-offering. Or rather; but no sin-offering. tFJiereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation, to reconcile withal in the holy place, sliallbe eaten; &c] Such were: those sin-offerings for. the high-priest, (iv. 3.) and for the whole congregation, upon particular occasions,, (iv.‘13,< &c.) Or upon the day of general atonement, (xvi; 27.) No part of these was to be eaten, but entirely burnt in the fire; as R^Iiere foll6ws in the end of this verse. There i& no necessity of Maimonides’s observation upon these words; that no man whatsoever might eat of these sacrifices: for if the priest mightnot, they were certainly prohibited to all otker persons.