Commentary on Leviticus, Book · Chapter 17
CHAP. XVII.
Ver. 1. Verſe 1 AND the LORD ſpake unto Moſes, ſaying.] After he had ordered the great Anniverſary Sacrifice, in the foregoing Chapter; he gives ſome Directions about other Sacrifices, for which there would be occaſion every day.
Ver. 2. Verſe 2 Speak unto Aaron and his Sons, and all the Children of Iſrael.] Who were all concerned in what follows; and therefore this Command is directed to the whole houſe of Iſrael, (v. 3.) to whom this was delivered, it is likely, by their Elders: or elſe Moſes himſelf went from Tribe to Tribe, and ſpake to their ſeveral Families.
And ſay unto them, This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded.] Enjoyned by a Special Law.
Ver. 3. Verſe 3 Whatſoever man there be of the Houſe of Iſrael, that killeth an Ox, or Lamb, or Goat.] viz. For a Sacrifice or Offering, (as it follows v. 4.) theſe being the only Creatures of the Herd and the Flock, that were permitted to be brought to God's Altar. There are thoſe indeed, who think, Moſes ſpeaks of killing theſe Creatures for common uſe; which it was lawful for them to do any where, after they came to the Land of Canaan, (XII Deut. 15.) but now they were not to kill them, for their food, unleſs they brought them to the door of the Tabernacle, and there firſt ſacrificed ſome part of them to the LORD, before they taſted of them themſelves. By which their ſacrificing to Daemons was prevented, (to which they were prone, v. 7.) and they alſo conſtantly feaſted with God, while they dwelt in the Wilderneſs. But this is better founded upon XII Deut. 20, 21. where it is ſuppoſed that they had thus done, while they remained in the Wilderneſs; and were ſo near to the Houſe of God, that they might eaſily bring thither every Beaſt they killed for ordinary uſe. But they were diſpenſed withal as to this, when they came into Canaan, and could not poſſibly, when they had a mind to eat Fleſh, go ſo far as to the Tabernacle or Temple, which was many Miles from ſome of them. Inſtead whereof, they were bound to come at the three great Feſtivals, and appear before God at his Houſe, whereſoever they dwelt.
In the Camp, or that killeth it out of the Camp.] This ſeems to ſhow that he doth not ſpeak of killing theſe Beaſts, ad uſum veſcendi, as St. Auſtin's words are, for the uſe of eating, (for that they did not do out of the Camp, but in their Tents) but de Sacrificiis, he ſpeaks concerning Sacrifices. For he prohibits (as he goes on) private Sacrifices, lest every Man ſhould take upon him to be a Priest, &c.
Ver. 4. Verſe 4 And bringeth it not unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD.] In ancient time every Man had performed the Office of a Prieſt in his own Family: But now that liberty is taken away, becauſe they had abuſed it to Idolatry: and every Man was bound to bring his Sacrifice to the Houſe of God, where none but the Sons of Aaron could officiate, and had the moſt ſacred Obligations on them to offer only to the LORD. The very Heathens themſelves in future times, found it neceſſary to enact the very ſame; as appears by Plato in the latter end of his Tenth Book of Laws, where he hath theſe memorable words: foreign. Let this be a Law impoſed abſolutely upon all, that no Man whatſoever have a ſacred place in private Houſes; but when he hath a mind to offer Sacrifice, let him go to the publick Temples, and deliver his Sacrifice to the Prieſts, whether Men or Women, foreign, whoſe buſineſs it is to take care, that theſe things be performed in an holy manner. By which it appears that theſe were two eſtabliſhed Principles of Religion in wiſe Mens minds, to Sacrifice publickly, and to bring their Sacrifices to the Prieſts; who were to take care to offer them purely. Unto which Moſes adds one thing more, that their publick Sacrifices ſhould be offered only at one place: which was a moſt efficacious preſervative from all ſtrange Worſhip; nothing being done but under the Eye of the Miniſters of Religion, and the Governours of the People. Inſomuch that St. Chryſoſtom (as our learned Dr. Spencer obſerves, Lib. I. de Rit. & Leg. Hebr. L. I. cap. 4. ſect. 1.) calls Jeruſalem, which was afterwards eſtabliſhed to be this place, foreign, a kind of bond or knot, whereby the whole Nation were tied faſt to the Judaical Religion.
Before the Tabernacle of the LORD.] Before the Divine Majeſty, which dwelt in the Tabernacle; round about which they all inhabited, and were ſo near it while they travelled in the Wilderneſs, that, as there was no trouble in bringing all their Sacrifices thither, ſo they knew certainly whether to go. And thus the Hebrew Doctors obſerve it was when they came into Canaan; where, while the Tabernacle was fixed in Shilo, none might Sacrifice any where elſe: But when it wandred uncertainly (after Shilo was deſtroyed) being ſometimes in Miſpeh, ſometimes at Gilgal, and at Nob, and Gibeon, and the Houſe of Obed-Edom, they fancy it was lawful to Sacrifice in other places. For ſo we find Samuel did, 1. Sam. VII. 9. IX. 13. (where he ſacrificed in an high place) XI. 15. XVI. 2. and David, 2 Sam. XXIV. 18. and Elias, 1 Kings XVIII. 23. But theſe may be thought extraordinary acts, done by an immediate warrant from God; for none of theſe Perſons were Priests, but Prophets guided by Divine Inſpirations. See Dr. Owtram Lib. I. de Sacrific. cap. 2.
Blood ſhall be imputed unto that man, he hath ſhed blood.] He was to be puniſhed as a Murderer; that is, die for it. For to have Blood imputed to a Man, in the Hebrew phraſe, or to be guilty of Blood, is to be liable to have his Blood ſhed, or to loſe his Life. Which, as of old, it was the puniſhment of every one, who killed another Man, (IX Gen. 6.) ſo here he is condemned to die who ſacrificed any where, but at the Tabernacle.
And that man ſhall be cut off from among his people.] This, not another puniſhment, (unleſs we ſuppoſe it relates to his Poſterity) and therefore the firſt word ſhould be tranſlated, not and, but for. And the meaning either is, that the Magiſtrate ſhould paſs the Sentance of Death upon him, or God would deſtroy him himſelf. The latter ſenſe is moſt probable, becauſe he threatens (v. 10.) to execute Vengeance with his own hand, upon him that was guilty of eating Blood. It is thought indeed by ſome, that cutting off doth not ſignifie death; but, as in other places of this Book, cutting off is ſo evidently joyned with death, that ſo little cannot be meant by it, as depriving ſuch Perſons of the priviledges of God's People, (for inſtance, when any offered his Children to Moloch, XX. 2, 3, 4, 5. or did not afflict his Soul on the Day of Atonement, XXIII. 29, 30.) ſo here in this place, it moſt certainly ſignifies the putting him that was guilty of this Crime, to death; becauſe he was to be puniſhed as a Murderer. Which ſevere Penalty was enacted in this caſe, to preſerve the Iſraelites from Idolatry. For if they had been permitted to offer Sacrifice where they pleaſed, they might eaſily have forſaken God, by altering the Rites which he had ordained; nay, by offering to ſtrange Gods: particularly to the Daemons, which, in thoſe days, frequented the Fields, and indeavoured to perſwade the ignorant, that they were Gods; as ſeems to be intimated in the next Verſe, and v. 7.
Ver. 5. Verſe 5 To the end.] Or, For this cauſe; i. e. to avoid that heavy puniſhment before-mentioned.
That the Children of Iſrael may bring their Sacrifices.] Or, Shall bring: as the Vulgar Latin tranſlates it, (regarding the ſenſe, more than the words) Ideo Sacerdoti offerre debent, &c. Therefore they ought to bring to the Prieſt their Sacrifices, &c.
Which they offer in the open field.] Where the Pagans erected their Altars, to procure fruitfulneſs to their Fields. Inſomuch that Libanius ſaith (in his Oration foreign) that the Temples, or Holy Places, were the very Soul or Life of the Fields: foreign. And that in them lay the hope of the Husbandmen: foreign. How old this Idolatry was, we cannot certainly tell; but it continued a long time among the Iſraelites, as we learn from the Prophet Jeremiah, XIII. 27. and Hoſea XV. 11. where he ſaith, Their Altars were as heaps in the furrows of the field: that is, there were abundance of them; notwithſtanding this early prohibition given by Moſes. And among the Gentiles, Feſtus tells us they offered Sacrifices to the terreſtrial Gods, in terra, upon the very ground (according to the Hebrew phraſe here, on the face of the field) but to the infernal Gods, in terra effoſſa, in holes or pits digged in the Earth; and to the caeleſtial, in aedificiis à terra exaltatis, in Buildings exalted above the Earth; i. e. upon Altars: which had their name from hence, ab altitudine, from their height, as both he and Servius alſo tell us. And every one knows that they delighted to ſet them in high places, on the tops of Mountains and Hills; eſpecially where there were Groves and ſhady Trees; under which they ſet them, even in Valleys, and in the High-ways, Fields and Meadows. For they were ſo fond of them, that thoſe who were againſt erecting of Temples to their Gods (as Zeno was) yet never ſacrificed without Altars; which they ſet in the open Air, to ſignifie they believed he whom they worſhipped could not be circumſcribed.
Even that they may bring them unto the LORD.] Or, They ſhall bring them even unto the LORD: who had ſettled his Habitation at the Tabernacle, and would be worſhipped no where elſe with Sacrifices.
Ʋnto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation unto the Priest.] Here ſeems to be another reaſon, why they were not permitted to offer in the Field; becauſe God would have none but the Prieſts (Men appointed by himſelf, to attend for this purpoſe at his Houſe) to offer Sacrifices to him, according to the Rites he had preſcribed.
And offer them for peace-offerings unto the LORD.] Upon theſe words Nachmanides grounds the forenamed opinion, That whilſt the Jews continued in the Wilderneſs, they ate no Meat at their own private Tables, but what had been firſt offered to God at the Tabernacle. Behold, ſaith he, God commanded that all which the Iſraelites did eat, ſhould be Peace-offerings. Which was afterwards altered, when they came to Canaan, and lived remote from the Houſe of God. And ſuch a Cuſtom prevailed among the Gentiles, who would not ſit down to eat at their Tables, till they had offered Bread and Wine unto their Gods. Thus it was among the Chaldees, as appears from I Daniel 8. But then they had many Altars every where, even in their own private Houſes. Whereas here in the Wilderneſs, there was but one Altar; which could not contain all the Fat that was to be burnt on it every day, if we ſuppoſe the Iſraelites to have commonly killed Beaſts for their own eating. It ſeems to be the truer opinion that they ſeldom or never did that, while they were in the Wilderneſs; but all the Beaſts they killed were for Sacrifice, of which Moſes here ſpeaks. So R. Levi Barcelonita (Praecept. CLXXXVII.) and other Jewiſh Doctors, they are here forbidden to offer a Sacrifice to God any where, without the Tabernacle. He mentions indeed only Peace-offerings; but the reaſon is, becauſe they were moſt common; being offered not only for all the Mercies they had received, but for all they deſired to obtain from God; as Abarbanel obſerves upon the VIIth Chapter of this Book, where the ſeveral ſorts of them are mentioned. Men were more forward alſo to bring theſe Offerings than any other, becauſe they were to have their ſhare of them, and feaſt upon them.
Ver. 6. Verſe 6 And the Priest ſhall ſprinkle the blood upon the Altar of the LORD, at the door of the Tabernacle.] This depends upon the foregoing command of offering all their Sacrifices at the Tabernacle; that ſo the Blood might be ſprinkled upon the Altar, (and poured out at the bottom of it, as is required in other places of this Book) and not kept together in a Veſſel, or a hole in the Ground: As the manner of the ancient Idolatry was, when they offered their Sacrifices in the Field, and ſate about this Blood, and feaſted upon the Fleſh of their Sacrifice. So Maimonides ſaith the Cuſtom of the Zabij was, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46.
And burn the fat.] So the manner was in all Sacrifices: which is ſaid alſo, to be for a ſweet ſavour unto the LORD. See I. 8, 9. III. 3, 5. IV. 35, &c.
Ver. 7. Verſe 7 And they ſhall no more.] It ſeems by this they had been guilty of other Idolatrous Practiſes, beſides that of worſhipping the Golden Calf, XXXII Exod. And ſo much is expreſſed XXXII Deut. 17. And it was a ſin of which their Fathers had been long guilty, eſpecially in Egypt, XXIV Joſh. 14. XX Ezek. 7. XXIII. 2, 3. which they had not left, but continued in the Wilderneſs, V Amos 25.
Offer their Sacrifices unto Devils.] Theſe words ſhow the reaſon why God commands them, under ſuch a heavy Penalty, to offer only in one place, at the Tabernacle; becauſe, while they ſacrificed in the open Fields, they had been in danger to be ſeduced by Daemons, who were wont to frequent thoſe places, (eſpecially in Deſerts) and preſent themſelves to ignorant People, as if they were Gods, and intice their Devotion towards them. Which Daemons, or Evil Spirits, appeared, it is likely, in the form of Goats; and therefore are here called Seirim, which properly ſignifies Goats. And hath made ſome imagine that they really ſacrificed to theſe Creatures, as ſome of the Egyptians did, who held Goats to be ſacred Animals. So Diodorus tells us, Lib. II. foreign, &c. they deified a Goat; upon the ſame account that the Greeks worſhipped Priapus. Herodotus in his Euterpe, cap. 46. ſaith the ſame of the Mendeſij, who, he ſaith, worſhipped the Males more than the Females. And many other Authors mentioned by Bochartus (in his Hierozoicon P. I. L. II. cap. 53.) report the ſame. But I queſtion whether the Egyptians were guilty of ſuch Idolatry, in the days of Moſes. Nor is there more truth in their opinion, who think the Iſraelites now worſhipped Images in this form of Goats. Which the LXX. ſeem to have thought, when they tranſlated it foreign, to vain things, as Idols are called in Scripture. And yet this very word Seirim is by the Greek Tranſlators rendered foreign, XIII Iſaiah 21. which we here follow; only inſtead of Daemons tranſlating it Devils: whom the ancient Zabij worſhipped; they appearing to them in the form of Goats; and this Cuſtom was univerſally ſpread (as Maimonides thinks) in Moſes his time, which was the cauſe of this Precept, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46.
And indeed nothing is more common in the Writings of the ancient Heathen, than the mention of Fauns, and Satyrs, and Aegipanes, whoſe ſhape below was that of a Goat. And to this day, in the ſolemn Conventions of Witches, the chief Devil that preſides in their Aſſemblies, is ſaid by all, that have examined ſuch matters, to have the form of a Goat. And our famous Country-man Alexander Hales, in his Diſcourſe upon the Scape-Goat (which is in his Summa, P. III. Q. 55.) derives the reaſon of it from the frequent appearance of Daemons in this ſhape in the Wilderneſs; as Mr. Selden obſerves in his Prolegomena to his Book de Diis Syris. They that would ſee more of theſe Seirim, may conſult J. G. Voſſius, L. I. de Orig. & progr. Idolol. cap. 8. and Bochartus his Hierozoicon. P. II. L. VI. cap. 7.
There is one indeed (Anton. Van Dale) who hath lately endeavoured to explode all theſe Fancies, as he eſteems them, of Daemons: which he would have to be the meer invention of the ancient Chaldaeans; and from them derived to other Nations. But he will never be able to make any wiſe Man believe, that the World was ſo ſottiſh, as to worſhip the Images of Goats (which he takes to be meant by Seirim) if there had not been an appearance of ſome thing in that ſhape, which they accounted Divine.
After whom they have gone a whoring.] i. e. With whom they have committed Idolatry. For this ſin was juſtly called by the name of whoredom, ever after they were ſolemnly contracted and eſpouſed to God, to be his peculiar People (XIX Exod. 5.) Which is the reaſon that he is ſaid, ſo often, to be a jealous God (particularly XX Exod. 5.) highly incenſed, that is, at their worſhipping other Gods, beſides him. For this, and ſuch like words are never uſed but concerning Idolatry; which Ezekiel deſcribes as the fouleſt Whoredom, XVI. 22. and particularly mentions this Whoredom with the Egyptians, v. 26. and the Aſſyrians, v. 28, &c.
This ſhall be a ſtatute for ever unto them, throughout all generations.] Theſe words ſeem to me to determine the ſenſe of the foregoing Precept, to which they relate, (from v. 2, &c.) not to be, that all the Meat they killed for their own Tables ſhould be Peaceofferings: for that, all confeſs, was not a ſtatute for ever (if it were one at all) throughout all generations; but only while they were in the Wilderneſs.
Ver. 8. Verſe 8 And thou ſhalt ſay unto them, whatſoever man there be of the houſe of Iſrael, or of the ſtrangers which ſojourn among you.] Theſe words alſo ſhow he ſpeaks in the foregoing, of bringing all Sacrifices whatſoever to the Tabernacle; the ſame Law which was given before to the Iſraelites, being now extended to all Strangers that ſojourned among them. By whom he means all ſuch as were Proſelytes to the Jewiſh Religion. So the LXX. here tranſlate it; and they add the very ſame words to v. 3. where the houſe of Iſrael is only mentioned in the original Hebrew. The only queſtion is, What ſort of Proſelytes are here intended? And I take it, he ſpeaks of the Proſelytes of Righteouſneſs (as the Jews call them) who were Circumciſed, and thereby embraced the whole Religion of Moſes. And this, I find, is the general opinion: though ſome few learned Men contend, that any Stranger who had renounced Idolatry (whom they called, A Proſelyte of the Gate) might bring their Sacrifices to the Altar. Which one can hardly allow (though aſſerted by ſo great a Man as Grotius, Lib. I. de Jure Belli & Pacis, cap. 16.) becauſe he ſpeaks of the ſame Strangers here, which are mentioned v. 10. where all ſuch Strangers are forbidden to eat Blood. Which plainly belongs to ſuch Strangers as were become Jews by Circumciſion: for other Strangers might eat it, as appears from XIV Deut. 21. where the Iſraelites are allowed to ſell what died of it ſelf, to a Stranger, that he might eat it, if he pleaſed: and ſuch Creatures had their Blood in them.
That offereth a Burnt-offering, or Sacrifice.] i. e. Any other Sacrifice beſides Burnt-offerings, viz. Sin-offerings, or Treſpaſs-offerings, or Peace-offerings. None of which were accepted, but from ſuch as were admitted into the Jewiſh Religion: though the pious Gentiles, the Jews ſay, might bring Burnt-offerings.
Ver. 9. Verſe 9 And bringeth it not to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, to offer it unto the LORD.] As he ordered their Peace-offerings to be, v. 4, 5.
Shall be cut off from among his people.] This demonſtrates that the foregoing Precept, and this, belong to the ſame matter; being inforced with the ſame Penalty, v. 4. And it alſo ſhows that the Strangers beforementioned, ſignifie ſuch Gentiles as were Circumciſed: for otherwiſe they were not of the Body of the People of Iſrael, from which they are threatned to be cut off, if they did not obſerve this Law.
Ver. 10. Verſe 10 And what man ſoever he be of the houſe of Iſrael, or of the ſtrangers that ſojourn among you.] See v. 8.
That eateth any manner of blood.] This is forbidden before, III. 17. and repeated again VII. 26. (See both thoſe places) where it is explained what Blood he means; either of Birds, or Beaſts. Nothing is ſaid of Fiſhes, becauſe they were not offered at the Altar, and have little Blood in them: nor is there any direction given any where, how they ſhould be killed. It is ſaid indeed in this place, that they ſhould not eat any manner of Blood; but the meaning ſeems to be, neither of Blood offered at the Altar; nor of Beaſts killed for their own uſe: Or elſe it is to be limited as before, to the Blood of Beaſts and Birds, (v. 13.) for Fiſhes were not at all conſidered. And here the reaſon is added why they ſhould not eat Blood, (which was not mentioned in the fore-named places) becauſe it was the Life of the Beaſt, and was therefore reſerved to make Atonement for their Souls.
I will even ſet my face against that ſoul, &c.] That is, be extreamly angry with him, and ſeverely puniſh him, by cutting him off (as it here follows) from the Body of the Nation. Maimonides obſerves in the fore-named place (More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46.) that this is the ſame Expreſſion which is uſed againſt him that offered his Children to Moloch, XX. 3. and that this phraſe is never uſed in Scripture concerning any other ſin, but only theſe two, Idolatry and eating Blood. For the eating of Blood gave occaſion (he ſhows) to one kind of Idolatry, in the worſhipping of Daemons: whoſe Food the ancient Idolaters imagined the Blood was; by eating of which their Worſhippers had Communion with them. See XVI Pſal. 4. and Grotius there.
Ver. 11. Verſe 11 For the life of the fleſh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the Altar, to make an atonement for your ſouls, &c.] Some think here are two diſtinct Reaſons againſt eating of Blood: but the words, as they lie in the Hebrew, may well be tranſlated, Becauſe the life of the fleſh (of any Beaſt, that is) is in the blood, therefore I have given it to you (or, appointed it for you) upon the Altar, to make an atonement, &c. Which is as much as to ſay, The Life of the Beaſt lying in the Blood, I have ordained it to expiate your ſins, that by its death in your ſtead, your life may be preſerved: and therefore I require you not to eat that, which is appointed for ſo holy an end. For it would have been very unſeemly, if they had vulgarly uſed that, to which they owed the favour of God, and their very Lives.
Nothing could be more rational than this Precept, viz. That a thing ſo ſacred, as to be peculiarly appointed for them upon the Altar, ſhould not loſe that honour and eſteem that was due to it. As the Blood would have done, if it had been allowed to be commonly eaten; for that is very contemptible which goes into the Draught, (as our Saviour ſpeaks) and at laſt becomes Ordure.
For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the ſoul.] The Blood, that is, of the Sacrifices, which by God's appointment are offered to expiate your ſins; that is, to preſerve you from periſhing. For to make an Atonement, and to be a Ranſom, are the very ſame thing; as appears from XXX Exod. 12. compared with v. 15, 16. And to be a Ranſom, is to deliver from Death, as appears from the words in that place, they ſhall every Man give a Ranſom for his Soul, unto the LORD, that there be no Plague among them. For the ſins of the Sacrificer being laid upon the Beaſt which he offered, by impoſition of his hand on its Head, and confeſſing them there, they were taken away by the Blood of that Beaſt, unto which they were tranſlated. And that not meerly by the Obedience of him that offered the Sacrifice, (which the followers of Socinus ſay, God accepted) but by the Blood of the Sacrifice it ſelf, as theſe words expreſly declare, which was offered in his ſtead. Thus Theodoret upon theſe words; God commanded the Soul of the Irrational Creature, with its Blood, foreign, &c. to be offered, inſtead of thy Rational and Immortal Soul. And thus the Jews themſelves underſtand it; particularly Aben-Ezra upon theſe words, ſaith, the Soul, inſtead of the Soul; i.e. the Soul of the Beaſt was offered inſtead of the Soul of the Man. And R. Solomon Jarchi to the ſame purpoſe; One Soul comes, and makes Expiation for another Soul. And Maimonides more largely; I have ſpared the Soul of the Man, and given this Blood upon the Altar; that the Soul of the Beast may make Expiation for the Soul of the Man. And ſo Abarbanel and many more, which may be ſeen in Dr. Owtram's moſt learned Book De Sacrificiis, Lib. I. cap. 22. n. 11.
Ver. 12. Verſe 12 Therefore I ſaid unto the Children of Iſrael, No ſoul of you ſhall eat blood, neither ſhall any ſtranger that ſojourneth among you eat blood.] What other reaſon ſoever there was before, for not eating Blood (See IX Gen. 4.) this is the reaſon why God forbad it to the children of Iſrael; and to all that joyned themſelves unto their Religion.
Ver. 13. Verſe 13 And whatſoever man there be of the Children of Iſrael, or of the ſtrangers that ſojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any Beaſt or Fowl that may be eaten.] Though no other Beaſts or Fowls be mentioned, but thoſe that were taken in Hunting, (that being a very common thing in thoſe days) yet the Precept extends to all thoſe that were bred at home, and were allowed by the Law for their Food. So a MS. Author, mentioned by J. Wagenſeil, in his Annotations upon Sota, cap. 2. excerpt. Gemarae, n. 6. where he puts abundance of Caſes upon this Subject.
He ſhall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with duſt.] Though it was not the Blood of a Sacrifice offered at the Altar, but of a Beaſt or Bird killed for their own uſe; they might not eat it, but bury it in the Ground; leſt any Beaſt ſhould lick it up, as it is commonly interpreted. Maimonides hath found a deeper reaſon for this, which is, That no Body might meet, and feaſt about it. By which means Moſes broke their Society and Fellowſhip with Daemons: who in thoſe times were thought to feed upon the Blood, in a Bowl, or Hole; whilſt their Worſhippers ſate about it eating of the Fleſh. So he writes in the place often before-mentioned, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46. And this was the more neceſſary while they remained in the Wilderneſs, becauſe Daemons were wont to haunt ſuch places, and there appear; but not in Cities or habitable Places. See Mr. Selden, Lib. II. de Synedr. cap. 4. p. 201. If a Man therefore ſaw his Neighbour kill a Beaſt, and neglect to cover its Blood with Duſt, he was bound to go and do it himſelf; becauſe God ſpeaks here unto the Children of Iſrael, i. e. to all of them, (v. 12.) as R. Levi Barcelonita gloſſes, Praecept. CLXXXV. And the forenamed MS. mentioned by Wagenſeil, ſaith, they covered the Blood with this form of Benediction, Bleſſed be the LORD our God, the King of the World, who hath ſanctified us with his Precepts, and commanded us to cover Blood. Which ſhows they thought this a Precept of great weight.
Ver. 14. Verſe 14 For it is the life of all fleſh, &c.] Whether of Beaſts or Fowl before-mentioned: and therefore prohibited to be eaten by them, (as was before obſerved) becauſe it was offered to God, and accepted by him for their Life, when they had forfeited it by their ſins.
Therefore I ſaid unto the Children of Iſrael, ye ſhall eat the blood of no manner of fleſh.] See v. 12. Where the ſame thing is ſaid, but not ſo fully as here: for he only ſaith in that Verſe, No ſoul of you ſhall eat blood: but in this, Ye ſhall eat the blood of no manner of fleſh.
For the life of all fleſh is the blood thereof.] This is ſo often repeated (no leſs than three times in this Verſe) the more to deter them from eating Blood: which was the Life of the Beaſt, and therefore offered to God, as the LORD and Giver of Life; and conſequently belong'd to no Body elſe.
Ver. 15. Verſe 15 And every ſoul that eateth that which dieth of it ſelf.] And conſequently had the Blood remaining in it; as all things alſo, which were not rightly killed had, (the Hebrews think) and therefore here forbidden.
Or that which was torn with Beaſts.] Which was nothing elſe (as Maimonides ſpeaks) but the beginning to be a dead Carcaſe, More Nevochim, P. III. cap. 48.
Whether it be one of your own Country, or a ſtranger.] By a Stranger is meant one that had embraced the Jewiſh Religion: for other Gentiles might eat ſuch things. Nay, the Iſraelites themſelves (as Maimonides obſerves) when they went to War, and entred the Countries of the Gentiles, and ſubdued them, might eat that which died of it ſelf, or was torn of Beaſts; nay Swines-fleſh, and ſuch like Food, when they were hungry, and could find no other Meat. See Schickardi Miſhpat Hamelek, cap. 5. Theor. 18.
He ſhall both waſh his clothes, and bathe his fleſh in water, &c.] When he had eaten theſe things unwittingly, and came to know it, he was thus to purifie himſelf. If he did it knowingly, it was an high Crime, againſt an expreſs Law, repeated more fully XIV Deut. 21. and puniſhed, as ſome think, with Death. But I ſuppoſe they mean, he was obnoxious to the Divine Diſpleaſure, and in danger to be cut off by him, if he did not offer a Sacrifice to expiate his Offence: which ſeems to be allowed in ſuch Caſes, as it was for greater Offences, VI. 1, 2, &c. And the Jewiſh Doctors ſay, he who violated this Law, was only to be beaten: for cutting off, either by the hand of God, or the Court of Judgment, was not threatned to ſins of ſo light a Nature as this. So Maimonides obſerves in his More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 41.
Ver. 16. Verſe 16 But if he waſh them not, nor bathe his fleſh, he ſhall bear his iniquity.] Be liable to be puniſhed by God, for the neglect of the means of his Purification. And if while he continued thus unclean, he adventured to eat of the Peace-offerings, he was in danger to be cut off from his People, VII. 20.