Commentary on Leviticus, Book · Chapter 21
CHAP. XXI.
Ver. 1. Verſe 1 AND the LORD ſaid unto Moſes, ſpeak unto the Prieſts.] This Law about the Prieſts, perhaps, follows that laſt mentioned (v. 27. of the foregoing Chapter) to ſhow unto whom they ſhould reſort, and of whom they ſhould inquire, viz. of the Prieſts: who ſhould always be ready for any Prieſtly Office, and for common Converſation.
The ſons of Aaron.] His Daughters were not concerned in the following Prohibitions; becauſe they had nothing to do in offering Sacrifices, as Maimonides obſerves, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 47.
There ſhall none be defiled for the dead.] By touching the dead Body, or coming (as the Hebrews ſay) within four Cubits of it, or entring into the Houſe where it lay, (though it were to take care of the Funeral) or by following the Corps to the Grave, or making any Mourning for the Dead. Becauſe by theſe things they were legally polluted, for no leſs than ſeven days (XIX Numb. 11, 14.) and conſequently unfit for the Service of God, and for Converſation with their Neighbours. Who had the greater Reverence alſo for them, when they ſaw their Dignity to be ſo great, that they were not permitted to perform ſuch Offices, as others were obliged unto. For this, no doubt, was intended very much, to put an honour upon the Prieſthood; as it was alſo in other Nations, particularly among the Romans: who would not have their Pontifex to look upon a Funeral, as Bochart obſerves out of Seneca, (Hieroz. P. I. Lib. III. cap. 4.) and the Flamen Dialis might not go into the place where the Coffin was. For which reaſon, as Servius tells us (ad Lib. III. Aeneid.) they ordered a Bough of a Cypreſs-Tree to be ſtuck at the door of the Houſe where a dead Body lay, that the High-Prieſt might not ignorantly go into it. It appears alſo by Plato, that it was thus likewiſe among the Greeks. For he would have the Prieſts, of both Sexes, to accompany one that had diſcharged the Office of a Cenſor well, unto his Grave when he was buried, as unto a pure Funeral, (foreign) but for this, he ſays, they muſt ask leave of Apollo, Lib. XII. de Legibus, p. 947. See Porphyrius de Abſtin. Lib. II. ſect. 50.
Among his people.] The Jews are ſo Critical, as from the word [beammo] among his People, to gather; that if a Man did not die among his People, but in a ſtrange Country, where there was no Body to take care of his Funeral, and ſee him buried, a Prieſt might do it himſelf, rather than his Body ſhould lie above ground.
Ver. 2. Verſe 2 But for his kin that is near unto him.] Here is an Exception to the general Rule; becauſe it would have been very hard to reſtrain natural Affection from carrying them to their Parents, and Children, and Brethren, and Siſters, when they died. Which Caſes would not often happen, as Maimonides obſerves in the place before alledged: and they are particularly named, that there might be no miſtake; nor any colour to extend this Indulgence to Relations more remote.
For his mother and his father, and for his ſon and for his daughter, and for his brother.] If any have a mind to know the Rabbinical Reaſons, Why the Mother is here put before the Father; and v. 11. the Father before the Mother, with ſuch like things, he may conſult Simeon de Muis in his Varia Sacra, p. 356, &c.
Ver. 3. Verſe 3 And for his ſiſter a virgin.] I ſee no reaſon why it ſhould be reſtrained to his whole Siſter, both by Fathers and Mothers ſide (as ſome of the Hebrew Doctors would have it) for that his half Siſter by either of them, was nigh unto him (as it here follows) it appears by the Law about inceſtuous Marriages, XVIII. 9.
Which hath had no husband.] To take care of her Funeral: which her Brother therefore, though a Prieſt, might. It is commonly obſerved that there is no mention here of his Wife. But Maimonides with great reaſon thinks it was lawful for him to mourn for her: but it was needleſs to mention her, who, by the Law of God, was dearer to him than Father or Mother. And there is this Argument for it, that Ezekiel, who was a Prieſt, is forbidden, by a ſpecial command, to mourn for his Wife, which otherwiſe he would have done, XXIV. 16, &c.
Ver. 4. Verſe 4 But he ſhall not defile himſelf, being a chief man among his people.] But though he might defile himſelf for ſuch very near Relations, yet he might not for the greateſt Man in the Nation, who was not ſo near of kin to him. This ſeems to me to be the eaſieſt and the moſt natural ſenſe of this Verſe, by adding the particle lamed (which in the two foregoing Verſes is put before Mother, Father, Son, Daughter, Brother and Siſter) to Baal, i. e. chief man, (as we tranſlate it) nothing being more uſual than to omit ſuch a particle, which yet muſt be underſtood when it hath been often before-mentioned. And thus the Vulgar Latin underſtands it. And the ſenſe is the ſame, if we take it as our Tranſlation ſeems to intend it. But he ſhall not deſile himſelf (for any other) being a chief man, &c. As for the Marginal Tranſlation, I can ſee no ground for it: and there muſt be a greater Supplement by adding [for his wife:] which one cannot well think is here forbidden, as I obſerved on the foregoing Verſe. They alſo who tranſlate it, A chief Ruler ſhall not defile himſelf, &c. have ſtill leſs reaſon; the whole Diſcourſe in this place being concerning the Prieſts.
To profane himſelf.] He himſelf, in Sacred Offices, being the greateſt Perſon, would have been prophaned, i. e. rendred a common Man; if he had mourned for any, but thoſe whom Nature had very cloſely linkt him unto.
Ver. 5. Verſe 5 They ſhall not make baldneſs upon their head, neither ſhall they ſhave off the corners of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their fleſh.] Though they were allowed to mourn for ſome perſons, yet for none after this manner: that is, according to the Cuſtom of certain Places in Chaldaea, as Aben-Ezra gloſſes upon theſe words. And he might have added alſo of the Egyptians: among whoſe Ceremonies we find this in after times, and it's likely had been very ancient. For Jul. Firmicus tells us, in the beginning of his Book, That in their Annual Lamentations of Oſiris, they were wont to ſhave their heads, that they might bewail the miſerable misfortune of their King, by depriving themſelves of the ornament of hair, &c. And he adds, that they did tear their fleſh, and cut open the ſcars of their old wounds, &c. where Johan. Wouver obſerves the ſame out of ſeveral other Authors. And Plutarch in his Book of Superſtition, ſaith they generally uſed in mourning to be ſhaven; whereas the Hebrews let their hair grow. See X. 6. XIX. 27.
Ver. 6. Verſe 6 They ſhall be holy unto their God.] Attend to their Office, unto which they are peculiarly conſecrated: and not, without great neceſſity, be at any time unfitted for it.
And not profane the name of their God.] By doing as the common People did; or rendring themſelves uncapable to Miniſter unto the LORD; as they were when they were any way defiled.
For the Offering of the LORD made by fire.] They attend upon his Altar; where the Burnt-offerings, Peace-offerings, and all the reſt were offered.
And the bread of their God do they offer.] The word And is not in the Hebrew; and the ſenſe will be clearer if it be left out: The offering of the LORD made by fire, being called The bread of their God, i. e. his Meat, or Food. For the Altar was his Table; and what was burnt thereon was in the Nature of his Proviſion: which in the Scripture Language is comprehended under the name of Bread. So Solomon Jarchi ſaith, whatſoever may be eaten is called bread, (See III. 11.) Thus Fruit is called Bread, XI Jer. 19. and Milk, XXVII Prov. 27. and Honey, 1 Sam. XIV. 28. And therefore no wonder the Sacrifices are here called by that name, and by Malachi his Meat or Food, III. 12. Which phraſe is uſed, as the Author of Sepher Coſri well obſerves, to keep up the Notion that God dwelt gloriouſly, and kept Houſe among them, Pars II. cap. 26.
Ver. 7. Verſe 7 They ſhall not take a wife that is a whore.] All inceſtuous Marriages were as much forbidden Prieſts as any other Men. But beſides, here are three ſorts of Perſons, whom it was unlawful for a common Prieſt to marry, though there was no Kindred between them. The firſt is a Whore; whereby the Hebrew Doctors underſtand, not only one that was a common Proſtitute, but one that was not an Iſraelite, or an Iſraelitiſh Woman with whom a Man had lain, whom it was unlawful for her to marry. Which comprehends not only all ſuch as are forbidden in the XVIIIth Chapter of this Book; but thoſe alſo in XXIII Deut. 2, 3. See Selden de Succeſſionibus, Lib. II. cap. 2. & 3. and Ʋxor Hebraica, Lib. I. cap. 7. Lib. III. cap. 23.
Or profane.] A Woman was accounted ſo (as he ſhows in the ſame place) who was either deſcended from ſuch a Perſon, as is before-mentioned; or who was born of ſuch a Conjunction, as is here forbidden to a Prieſt. And there are thoſe who think it may be underſtood of one that had been conſecrated to a falſe Deity; whom ſhe ſerved with the uſe of her Body, which ſhe expoſed to the Worſhippers of that Deity. Who though ſhe afterwards repented, and became good, yet a Prieſt was not to marry her, no more than an ordinary Whore. But the ſimpleſt meaning of theſe three ſeems to be, that they ſhould not marry one that had proſtituted her Body, or that had been any way vitiated, though againſt her will; or was of ſuſpected Chaſtity; or (as it follows) was devorced from her Husband.
Neither ſhall they take a Woman put away from her Husband.] For commonly Women were put away for ſome fault, as Abarbanel notes; and were preſumed not to be ſuch as a Prieſt ſhould deſire. To the ſame purpoſe Procopius Gazaeus. A Prieſt, ſaith he, ſhould not only fly from manifeſt Evils, as Fornication, but decline whatſoever may blemiſh his Fame: now a Woman that is put away by her Husband, lies under a ſuſpicion of ſomething that is bad. For which reaſon (as Mr. Selden obſerves in the place abovenamed) a Prieſt might not marry her, whom her Huſband's Brother refuſed to marry after his death.
For he is holy unto his God.] Conſecrated, after a ſpecial manner, to the Service of the Divine Majeſty; and therefore was not to diſhonour his Prieſthood by ſuch Marriages as were not of good reputation. If he did, he was not to be ſuffered to Miniſter, until he had given ſuch a Wife a Bill of Divorce; as Maimonides ſaith in Biath Hamikdaſch, cap. 6. An example of which there was in Manaſſeh the Brother of Jaddua the High-Prieſt; who marrying, contrary to the Law, the Daughter of Sanballat the Samaritan, was commanded either to put her away, or not to come to the Altar. See Selden, Lib. II. de Succeſſione in Pontificatum, cap. 6. p. 238.
Ver. 8. Verſe 8 Thou ſhalt ſanctifie him therefore.] This ſeems to be ſpoken to Moſes, and to all that ſhould ſucceed him in the Supream Authority, that they ſhould take care the Prieſts ſhould not marry with ſuch Perſons; or if they did, not be ſuffered to Miniſter in the Prieſts Office, till they had put them away. Accordingly we find, that to keep the Prieſthood pure, and to avoid all ſuſpicion of any ſuch pollution, the Names of the Prieſts Parents were carefully preſerved in the Genealogical Tables, as we learn from II Ezra 62. VII Nehemiah 64. See Selden de Succeſſion. in Pontif. Lib. II. cap. 3. Ʋxor Hebr. Lib. I. cap. 7.
For he offereth the bread of thy God.] Miniſtreth at the Altar. See v. 6.
He ſhall be holy unto thee.] Keep himſelf pure, that he may not be unfit to offer Sacrifice for the People, as need ſhall require.
For I the LORD which ſanctifie you am holy.] I who have taken you to be my peculiar People, excel in all Perfections; and therefore require Perſons of extraordinary Sanctity to miniſter unto me.
Ver. 9. Verſe 9 And the daughter of any Priest, if ſhe profane her ſelf by playing the whore.] The Hebrew Doctors underſtand this of one married, at leaſt eſpouſed. So Aben-Ezra and R. Sol. Jarchi ſay expreſly, Our Rabbins confeſs with one mouth, that one not eſpouſed is not concerned in this Law. See Selden Lib. I. Ʋxor. Hebr. cap. 6. and Lib. III. cap. 23. p. 488.
She profaneth her father.] She was doubly guilty. Firſt in profaning, i. e. diſhonouring her ſelf; who being the Daughter of ſuch an eminent Perſon, committed ſuch an heinous Crime. And ſecondly in diſhonouring her Father, whoſe Reputation hereby ſuffered.
She ſhall be burnt with fire.] Which was the ſoreſt Puniſhment among the Jews, (See XX. 14.) and was not inflicted upon other Perſons, in this Caſe, (who were barely ſtoned, XXII Deut. 24.) but only upon the Daughter of a Prieſt, from whom greater Vertue was expected. But if the Witneſſes of this Fact were convicted of Perjury by other credible Witneſſes, produced by the Woman, or her Father, then both her Husband who accuſed her, and thoſe falſe Witneſſes, ſuffered the ſame Puniſhment that ſhe ſhould have done. See Selden, Lib. III. Ʋxor. Hebr. cap. 1. p. 321.
Ver. 10. Verſe 10 He that is the High-Priest among his brethren.] Hitherto the Laws given in this Caſe concern the common Prieſts: now follow thoſe by which the High-Prieſt was to govern himſelf; who was under peculiar Laws more ſtrict than the reſt.
Ʋpon whoſe head the anointing Oil was poured, &c.] He having a peculiar Conſecration different from the reſt, by pouring the holy Oil upon his Head, and clothing him with the moſt glorious Robes, (See VIII. 7, 8, &c.) was in all reaſon to diſtinguiſh himſelf, more than the reſt of the Prieſts, from common Men.
And that is conſecrated.] In the Hebrew the words are, whoſe hand is filled; as it was with the fat and the right ſhoulder of the Ram of Conſecration, &c. by which he was hallowed to miniſter in the Prieſts Office, XXIX Exod. 22, 23, 24.
To put on the Garments.] To be High-Prieſt.
Shall not uncover his head.] Rather, Shall not let his hair grow neglected without trimming; as the manner was in token of mourning. So Onkelos and Jonathan, and a great many more. See Selden, Lib. II. de Succeſſione in Pontificatum, cap. 5. p. 235. and what I have noted upon the tenth Chapter of this Book, v. 6.
Nor rent his Clothes.] Another token of mourning, which he was to forbear. Though the Talmudiſts will have it, that he might rent his Garments at the bottom, about his feet; but not at the top, down to his breaſt; as P. Cunaeus obſerves out of Maſſ. Horajoth, Lib. II. de Rep. Hebr. cap. 3. Before his Anointing, and Conſecration, and putting on the holy Garments, it was not unlawful for him to attend the Funeral of his Father. And therefore Eleazar was preſent when Aaron died, (XX Numb.) being as yet in a lower Miniſtry, and not compleatly advanced to the Office of High-Prieſt, but only declared Aaron's Succeſſor by putting on him his Garments. See X. 6.
Ver. 11. Verſe 11 Neither ſhall he go in to any dead body; nor defile himſelf for his father, or for his mother.] He might not go into the Houſe, where the Body of his Father or Mother lay dead (which was permitted to the inferiour Prieſts, v. 2, 3.) and conſequently he was not to make any external ſigns of mourning for Son or Daughter, Brother or Siſter.
Ver. 12. Verſe 12 Neither ſhall he go out of the Sanctuary.] If he was there when he heard of the death of his Father or Mother, he was not to ſtir out from thence till he had ſiniſhed his Miniſtry. See X. 7. For he had a little Houſe (after the Temple was built) within the Precincts of it, where he commonly remained all the day time; which was called Liſchcath cohen gadol, the Parlour of the High-Prieſt, as Cunaeus obſerves out of Maſſ. Midoth, Lib. II. de Republ. Hebr. cap. 3. At night he went to his own dwelling Houſe, which was in Jeruſalem, and no where elſe. There he might perform all the Offices of a Mourner, except thoſe which are here forbidden; and the People came to comfort him (as Maimonides relates in his Treatiſe on this Subject) and, ſitting upon the ground, while he ſat in his Chair at the Funeral Feaſt, they ſaid let us be thy Expiation, (i. e. let all the Grief that is on thee, fall upon us) unto which he anſwered, Bleſſed be ye from Heaven; as their words are reported in Sanhedrim, cap. 2. n. 1.
Nor profane the Sanctuary of his God.] By preferring his Affection to the Dead, before the Service of God in the Sanctuary: or by returning thither to his Miniſtry, when he had been defiled by the dead; which had been a great profanation. For he that touched a dead Body, was unclean ſeven days, XIX Numb. 11, 12.
For the crown of the anointing Oil of his God is upon him.] Some ſupply the word and between Crown and anointing Oil; and ſo make two reaſons why he ſhould diſtinguiſh himſelf from all other Men. Firſt, becauſe the holy Crown, as it is called XXIX Exod. 6. which had holineſs to the LORD ingraven on it, XXVIII Exod. 36. was ſet upon his Head: and his Head alſo was anointed with the holy Oil, XXX Exod. 25, 30. whereby he was, in a ſpecial manner, conſecrated to the Service of the moſt High. But there is no need of this; for the anointing Oil it ſelf was that which ſanctified him to his Office, and was poured on him, after the holy Crown was ſet on his head, VIII Lev. 9, 12. And ſo theſe words may be tranſlated, The Conſecration (for ſo the Hebrew word Nezer ſignifies) of the anointing Oil of his God is upon him. That is, he muſt remember he is ſolemnly devoted unto my Miniſtry, by that anointing; and therefore muſt not leave it to attend any other.
I am the LORD.] Whoſe Servant he is, by a peculiar Obligation.
Ver. 13. Verſe 13 And he ſhall take a Wife.] From the word Wife in the ſingular number, the Talmudiſts generally conclude, that Polygamy was not allowed to the High-Prieſt; who was to have but one Wife at a time, though other Men were permitted to have more. See Selden, Lib. II. de Succeſſione in Pontif. cap. 2. p. 207. and Ʋxor Hebraica, Lib. I. cap. 8. If he did take another, he was to give a Bill of Divorce to one of them before the great Day of Expiation; or elſe he was uncapable to perform the Offices of it; as P. Cunaeus obſerves in the place fore-named out of Joma. But if his Wife died, it was not unlawful for him to marry again, as Tertullian fancied from this very place, Lib. de de Monogam. cap. 7. and Exhort. ad Caſt. cap. 7.
In her virginity.] And not ſo much as eſpouſed to any other Perſon. Nor was any ſort of Virgin thought fit for his Wife, but only one that was newly come out of her minority, and had not yet attained to her full puberty; as Maimonides explains the ſenſe of their ancient Doctors. See Selden, Lib. I. Ʋxor Hebr. cap. 7. where he obſerves alſo, that this is to be underſtood of the High-Prieſt after he was in his Office: for if he had married a Widow before he was High-Prieſt, he was to keep her, and not put her away when he was advanced to it. But there are thoſe who imagine this Law obliged all the common Prieſts, who were to marry none but Virgins, as they are perſwaded from XLIV Ezek. 22. And no leſs Man than Hugo Grotius ſeems to be of this opinion, both here and in his Book de Jure Belli & Pacis, Lib. II. cap. 5. n. 9. in his Annotata to that Section. But the Hebrew Doctors are all of a contrary mind, and ſo are Joſephus and Philo, as Mr. Selden obſerves in his Addenda to the ſeventh Chapter of his firſt Book Ʋxor Hebr. and Lib. II. de Succeſſ. in Pontif. cap. 2. p. 208. And ſo Cunaeus alſo in the place fore-named, ſpeaking of this very Law, Non enim Sacerdotibus poſita eadem Lex fuit. Quippe viduam illi rite duxerunt, &c. But above all, a later moſt learned Writer, Joh. Wagenſeil, hath largely confuted this opinion, in which he hath ſhown Grotius was ſingular. For beſides that Ezekiel there ſuppoſes they might marry the Widow of a Prieſt, it is evident both from Jewiſh and Chriſtian Interpreters, that the ſtate of things under the Law is not to be meaſured by what the Prophet Ezekiel ſaith concerning the future Temple and Prieſts. But as Kimchi himſelf ſaith upon this place, If this Verſe must be expounded of every Prieſt, it relates to the greater ſanctity of the future Temple: for the Law at firſt undoubtedly was, that none but the High-Prieſt was confined to marry a Virgin. What Grotius alledges out of Joſephus to prove his affection, he hath ſhown, with due reſpect to ſo great a Man, doth him no Service. See his Annotata ad Miſchna Sota, cap. 4. p. 557, &c.
Ver. 14. Verſe 14 A Widow.] This was peculiar to the High-Prieſt, that beſides other Women which no Prieſt might marry, he alone is forbidden to marry a Widow; as the ſame learned Perſon there ſhows is the ſenſe of all the Hebrew Writers. And Moſes Kotzenſis obſerves, that by a Widow is to be underſtood, not only a Woman that had been married, but if ſhe had been meerly eſpouſed, it was unlawful for the High-Prieſt to take her for his Wife: And by the High-Priest, he ſaith, is to be underſtood not only the Succeſſor of Aaron, but he alſo that was anointed to the War. Which ſeems to be a ſtretching of the word beyond its meaning: though the word Widow may be allowed to comprehend one only eſpouſed; whom he might not marry, though ſhe had been eſpouſed to his Predeceſſor.
Or a divorced woman.] No, nor the Wife of his Brother that died without Iſſue: which others were bound to marry, but he was not.
Or profane.] The word Chalalah was explained before v. 7. which according to the Jews, ſignifies a Woman born of ſuch a Perſon as a Prieſt is prohibited to marry. As if the High-Prieſt had taken a Widow, and had a Daughter by her, that Child was profane, and might not be married, though a Virgin, by a ſucceeding High-Prieſt. And ſo of the reſt. See Buxtorf. de Sponſal. & Divort. p. 37, 38.
Or a harlot.] See v. 7.
But he ſhall take a virgin of his own people.] He was commanded before to marry none but a Virgin; and now he is further limited to a Virgin of Iſrael. For he doth not mean one of his own Tribe; there being inſtances to the contrary of a High-Prieſt marrying into the Royal Tribe, 2 Chron. XXII. 11.
Ver. 15. Verſe 15 Neither ſhall he profane his ſeed among his people.] Many think this refers to what goes before; that he ſhould not debaſe his Family by ſuch mixtures as have been mentioned. But I rather think it to be a new Precept, (as the Vulgar Latin takes it) that as he might marry none but of his own People, i. e. an Iſraelite: ſo among his People he ſhould not match with a vulgar Perſon, but with one nobly born. For that was the way to preſerve the dignity of the Prieſtly Office, at which all theſe Precepts aim.
For I the LORD do ſanctifie him.] I have ſeparated him to my ſelf, for a ſpecial and moſt holy Service. For which reaſon he was to diſtinguiſh himſelf from other Men, even in his marriage; to make them the more reverence the LORD whom he ſerved. Upon this account it was, that many Conſtitutions were made by the Elders, forbidding him what was allowed to other People; whereby they intended to advance his honour. For inſtance, he was forbidden to go into the Publick Baths, or to Feaſts. If he would viſit any that mourned, he was to be attended by other Prieſts. He was obliged to cut his hair every Week, but never to ſhave with a Raſon; to be in the Sanctuary every day, and to go home not above twice in a day; to have but one Wife at a time; and going into the Temple, to have three other Prieſts with him, &c. So Maimonides in Cele Mikdaſh, cap. 8.
Ver. 16. Verſe 16 And the LORD ſpake unto Moſes, ſaying.] Upon this occaſion God gave ſome other Precepts concerning the Prieſts, who were to wait upon him in his Houſe, and at his Table.
Ver. 17. Verſe 17 Speak unto Aaron, ſaying.] Having forbidden ſuch Marriages as would have been a diſhonour to the Prieſthood, had they been permitted, he now forbids any to ſerve at his Altar, who had the leaſt blemiſh in his Body; for that would have diſparaged his Divine Service.
Whoever he be of thy ſeed.] Whether High-Prieſt, or the common Prieſts.
In their generations.] In future Ages, as well as the preſent.
That hath any blemiſh.] From theſe general words, the Hebrew Doctors conclude, that not only the particular blemiſhes (afterward mentioned) made them uncapable to miniſter, but all other whatſoever which appeared in the Body; of which theſe here named are but a Specimen or Example. So Maimonides in Biath Hammikdaſh, whoſe words are, The blemiſhes expreſſed in the Law, are propounded for examples of the rest. Which they reckon to be in all CXLII. accounting only thoſe, which openly appeared, and not thoſe which were inward in the Kidneys, Bladder, or Bowels; becauſe there are no examples of ſuch in the particulars which here follow. They are divided by the Doctors into three Claſſes. Such as made Beaſts unfit to be offered (XXII. 20.) as well as Prieſts unfit to miniſter; of which ſort they reckon fifty. And ſuch as only made Prieſts uncapable to miniſter: of which ſort they reckon ninety. And ſuch as only made Men look ill-favouredly; which were but two. See Mr. Selden, Lib. II. de Succeſſione in Pontific. cap. 5.
Let him not approach.] Unto the Altar.
To offer the bread of his God.] i. e. To Sacrifice. See v. 6. and III. 2.
Ver. 18. Verſe 18 For whatſoever man he be that hath a blemiſh.] Though never ſo wiſe, or pious.
He ſhall not approach.] He makes it a ſtanding Law that no Man that had a blemiſh ſhould come to miniſter unto him at his Altar. And a reaſonable Law it was, approved by Pagans themſelves; for it is the very firſt qualification which Plato requires in him who was to be made a Prieſt, that he ſhould be foreign, &c. perfect in all his parts, and not a Baſtard; and that he ſhould be born of honeſt Parents, who had lived without the blemiſh of Murder, or any other Impiety, Lib. VI. de Legibus, p. 759. And ſuch a Law there was among the ancient Romans: Sacerdos integer ſit, That a Prieſt ſhould be intire in all his parts. Which Seneca mentioning (IV Controv. 2.) explains it by the example of Metellus, who loſing his Eyes, by adventuring to ſnatch the Palladium out of the Flames, when the Temple of Veſta was burnt, was denied the Prieſtſtood. For though he had done great Service, which did him great honour, yet their Opinion was, That Sacerdos non integri corporis, quaſi mali ominis res, vitandus est; a Prieſt who wanted any part of his Body, was to be avoided, as a thing that boded ill. For thus it was in Sacrifices, and therefore they thought with much more reaſon it ſhould be ſo in the Prieſts that offered them. See Dilherrus Diſput. Academ. Tom. II. p. 187, &c.
A blind man, or a lame.] Such natural defects, which befal us without, or againſt our will, as Procopius Gazaeus obſerves, are not to be imputed to us as any fault: and therefore he thinks ſuch Vices in the Mind as anſwer to theſe Blemiſhes in the Body, are here intended by Moſes. Yet he could not but acknowledge, that if we will follow the literal ſenſe (which no doubt is meant by theſe words) it is not becoming to ſee a Man perform Prieſtly Offices, who hath any viſible blemiſh in his Body, for inſtance, that halts, or cannot walk unleſs he have one to lead him. But Moſes, he ſtill thinks, had a reſpect to higher Matters, viz. to all the good qualities that St. Paul requires in a Biſhop. And therefore by a blind Man he underſtands, one without knowledge; and by a lame, one that walks not uprightly in the ways of God's Commandments. Such accommodations are ſo eaſie, that I need not further take notice of them.
Or he that hath a flat Noſe.] In the two firſt words, blind, or lame, there was no difficulty: but the word harum (which we tranſlate hath a flat Noſe) is not ſo plain. Yet the Hebrews generally agree it ſignifies one, the upper part of whoſe Noſe was ſo depreſſed, that the two Eye-brows ſeemed to meet, and to be but one: as Bochartus obſerves out of R. Solomon in his Canaan, Lib. I. cap. 33. p. 655.
Or any thing ſuperfluous.] The Hebrew word Saruae ſignifies any Member diſproportionable to the reſt: but more eſpecially (as their Doctors take it) the inequality of thoſe Members that are pairs: as when one of Man's Eyes, or Ears, or Legs, was bigger than the other.
Ver. 19. Verſe 19 Or a man that is broken-footed.] Though a Man did not halt, yet if his Foot was ſo broken, that it look'd deformed, he was uncapable to miniſter to the Divine Majeſty, becauſe it rendred him contemptible in the Eyes of the People; at leaſt not ſo graceful, as the Servants of the moſt High were to be.
Or broken-handed.] Any fracture in the Hand made a Man more remarkably unfit than the foregoing blemiſh; becauſe by this part all the Divine Offices were to be performed.
Ver. 20. Verſe 20 Or crook-backt.] The Hebrew word Gibben properly ſignifies bunch-backt: whether the bunch came from the luxation of the back-bone, or from a ſwelling in the fleſh.
Or a dwarf.] Who, beſides that he lookt deſpicably, was not able to reach up to the Altar. The Marginal tranſlation may be juſtified from the Hebrew, for dark in that Language ſignifies lean, or ſlender: but then the meaning muſt be, one whoſe fleſh was waſted by a Conſumption. The Vulgar took it for one bleareyed. And the LXX. alſo thought it ſignified ſome Diſeaſe in the Eyes, if the Complutenſian Edition be right, where this word is tranſlated foreign. But other Editions leave out the two laſt words, and then it is uncertain what foreign ſignifies: but moſt likely ſome ill-favoured ſpots or puſtles in the Face.
Or that hath a blemiſh in his eye.] The Hebrew words toballul beeno ſignifies one that hath a confuſed ſpot in the Eye. Which is called by the Chaldee Paraphraſts, and by the Talmudiſts, Chillez and Chalazon, which is the very ſame with the Greek word foreign, importing a concretion of a white Humor (like to an Hailſtone) foreign, as Aegineta ſpeaks, and Galen alſo. See Bochart. in his Hierozoicon. P. II. Lib. V. cap. 9. But this ſpot did not make a Prieſt uncapable to miniſter (as Selden obſerves in the place abovementioned) unleſs it was a little prominent; which made the blemiſh more apparent.
Or be ſcurvy, or ſcabbed.] One of theſe words ſignifies a dry ſcurf, or ſcab; the other a purulent.
Or hath his ſtones broken.] Is burſten, or hath a rupture, as ſome expound it. The LXX. tranſlate it foreign; by which Procopius Gazaeus underſtands an Hermophrodite.
Ver. 21. Verſe 21 No man that hath a blemiſh of the ſeed of Aaron the Priest, ſhall come nigh, &c.] This ſeems to confirm what was obſerved before, (v. 17.) that any other blemiſh, beſides theſe here particularly mentioned, made a Man uncapable to officiate at the Altar. And in the firſt place the Hebrew Doctors reckon five in the Ears, beſides the want of them. An Example of which Joſephus gives in the Story of Hyrcanus the High-Prieſt, whoſe Ears Antigonus cut off, that if he ſhould return again, he might not reſume his Office, Lib. I. de Bello Jud. cap. 11.
He hath a blemiſh.] This general repetition, is a farther confirmation that all apparent Blemiſhes, of the ſame kind with theſe here particularly named, excluded them from miniſtring at the Altar. And there being ſome of them that were permanent or perpetual (as they ſpeak) and others that were tranſient, which remained but for a time; no Man that had a Blemiſh, though only of the latter ſort, was to miniſter at the Altar, till it was gone.
He ſhall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.] i. e. The Offerings made by Fire before-mentioned; which are here plainly repreſented as the Meat that was ſerved up to his Table. See v. 6. If any of them did preſume to offer at the Altar, there were different Effects of their Contumacy; according to the different ſorts of their Blemiſhes; which the Hebrew Doctors divide into three Claſſes, as I obſerved v. 17. If any Man having a Blemiſh of the first ſort miniſtred, it profaned the very Sacrifice which he offered, and he was to be ſcourged. The ſecond ſort did not vitiate the Sacrifice, but the Prieſt was to undergo the forenamed puniſhment. The third ſort was ſo inconſiderable, that neither of theſe Effects followed, upon his miniſtring who was blemiſhed by them; as Mr. Selden obſerves, Lib. II. de Succeſſ. in Pontif. cap. 5. p. 234.
Ver. 22. Verſe 22 He ſhall eat of the bread of his God.] But though ſuch a Prieſt might not offer any Sacrifice, yet he might eat with his Brethren of that part of the Sacrifices, which was given to them for their portion: which no Man in his Uncleanneſs might do. Therefore theſe natural Infirmities were not Legal Impurities, but only Incapacities (as we ſpeak) which diſabled them for their Office.
Here again the Sacrifices are repreſented, as the Proviſion made for the Divine Majeſty. See v. 6, 21.
Both of the most holy.] Such were the Meat-offerings, (II. 3. VI. 17.) the Sin-offerings, (VI. 25, 26.) and the Treſpaſs-offerings, (VII. 1. See XIV. 13.) The Shew-bread alſo was a moſt holy thing: and all ſuch were to be eaten only by the Males of the Prieſts Family, in the holy place, XVIII Numb. 9, 10, 11, &c.
And of the holy.] Such were the Wave-breaſt, and the Heave-ſhoulder of the Peace-offerings, VII. 35. X. 14. and the Firſt-fruits, and the Tythes. But though the Peace-offerings of particular Perſons were among the leſs holy things; yet the Peace-offerings of the whole Congregation were most holy. See XXIII. 20.
Ver. 23. Verſe 23 Only he ſhall not go in unto the vail.] He was not to enter into the Sanctuary, to burn Incenſe, or to trim the Lamps, &c.
Nor come nigh unto the Altar.] No nor go to the Altar of Burnt-offering, which was in the Court of the LORD's Houſe: but he was to ſit in the Wood-room, where he was imployed in picking out all the Wood which had any Worms in it, that it might be laid aſide, and not carried to the Altar; as Maimonides and others relate. He had alſo another imployment, See XIII. 2. If any Man were ſo preſumptuous, or ſo forgetful, as to miniſter notwithſtanding the manifeſt Blemiſh which was upon him, he fell under Cenſure, and was puniſhed according to the degree of his Fault; as I obſerved before v. 21. out of Mr. Selden, who hath, in the place there mentioned, handled this more accurately, than I thought it needful for me to do.
That he profane not my Sanctuary.] That he might not make others think meanly of the Service of God; and conſequently of God himſelf: who would have Men, in their greateſt perfection, miniſter unto him, to preſerve in Peoples minds a ſenſe of his moſt excellent Being, unto whom they miniſtred. For which reaſon all the foregoing Prohibitions were given, againſt marrying ſuch Perſons as had been vitiated, &c. and againſt mourning for the dead, that they might not profane the name of their God, v. 6. by doing as vulgar People did, or making themſelves uncapable to miniſter unto God, as they were when they were defiled. And thus Maimonides diſcourſes upon this Subject, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 45. God commanded his Miniſters ſhould wear precious Apparel, and that none ſhould be admitted to the Miniſtry, who had any defect in his Body; nay, they who were deformed and illfavoured were excluded; becauſe the Vulgar do not judge according to Mens true worth or beauty (which lies in the Soul) but according to their outward appearance, in the comlineſs of their Bodies, and the richneſs of their Garments. And therefore the end of all theſe things was, that God's Houſe might be had in due honour and reverence.
My Sanctuaries.] This word in the Plural Number, relates to the two parts of the Sanctuary: the Court where the Altar of Burnt-offering ſtood (which was an holy place) and that which was properly called the Sanctuary, wherein the Altar of Incenſe was. Into neither of which, a Prieſt that had any Blemiſh might enter, as was ſaid before.
For I the LORD do ſanctifie them.] I have ſet apart both thoſe places for my Service; and therefore no Man with a blemiſh ſhall be admitted into them, to perform any holy Office there. Yet they might come into the Court, to eat with their Brethren of holy things, but not in their Prieſtly Garments, which it was not lawful for them to uſe.
Ver. 24. Verſe 24 And Moſes told it unto Aaron, and to his Sons, and unto all the Children of Iſrael.] They were all acquainted with theſe Laws, becauſe they were all concerned the Service of God ſhould be adminiſtred acceptably unto him.