Commentary on Leviticus, Book · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
Ver. 1. Verſe 1 AND the LORD ſpake unto Moſes, ſaying.] What here follows belonging unto the ſame matter, with that which went before, it is likely was ſpoken at the ſame time. And theſe words ſignifie, that the LORD further ſpake unto Moſes, what concerned Treſpaſs-offerings.
Ver. 2. If a ſoul ſin, and commit a treſpaſs.] The ſame ſort of expreſſion is uſed in the beginning of this Law, concerning the Offerings, V. 15. Which ſome tranſlate prevaricate, or act inſincerely.
Against the LORD.] The Soveraign of the World; who was peculiarly affronted by the following Sins; eſpecially by ſwearing falſly, 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 they call The Oath of Teſtimony: which a Man was not bound to give, unleſs he 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 Halicah Olam, Pars IV. cap. 2.
Or in fellowſhip.] To carry on a common Trade, in joynt-ſtock; 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 were oft-times made: Which if a Man afterwards denied, he fell under the guilt here mentioned. And there is ſome reaſon to think, that this is much of the ſame nature with the former; becauſe, when he ſpeaks of Reſtitution, v. 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 Goods, called Teſumah jad. They that would ſee more Opinions about theſe words putting of the hand, may conſult Conſt. l'Empereur 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 tendred an Oath to thoſe who were accuſed, or ſuſpected of it, to clear themſelves from the imputation, XXII Exod. 11.
Or hath deceived his neighbour.] Wrong'd him by falſe Accuſation, as the Hebrew word Hoſchok ſeems to import. Which St. Hierom always tranſlates Calumny; as the word Haſchak he tranſlates to calumniate. It ſignifies alſo extortion; and Raſi takes it for defrauding an Hireling of his Wages.
Ver. 3. Verſe 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 falſly.] 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.
That a man doth.] Wherein one Man dealeth with another: or which frequently happen, as Grotius thinks this phraſe ſignifies, in his Annotations upon 1 Corinth. X. 13.
Sinning therein.] By theſe means contracting a guilt.
Ver. 4. Verſe 4 Then it ſhall be, becauſe he hath ſinned and is guilty.] The laſt words ſhould rather be tranſlated, and acknowledges his guilt. For ſo this word Aſcham, guilty, ought to be expounded, as I ſhowed IV. 22, 23. to make a clear ſenſe of the Law there mentioned. And it would otherwiſe be ſuperfluous here: for when a Man had 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 fore-mentioned, and acknowledges his 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 XXII Exod. 1, 7, 9. Where a Man that ſtole an Ox, is condemned to reſtore five Oxen; and four Sheep for one; and if he delivered Money to another to keep, and it was ſtolen, the Thief was to pay double: whereas, here one ſimple Reſtitution is exacted, with the addition of a fifth part. The reaſon is, becauſe in Exodus he ſpeaks of thoſe Thieves who were convicted by Witneſſes in a Courſe 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 no Body 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 L'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 V Numb. 7. where the firſt words may be tranſlated, If they ſhall confeſs their ſin that they have done, &c. And this ſeems to me more reaſonable than the account which Maimonides gives of this matter, in his More Nevochim, P. III. c. 41. where expounding theſe words, which he took violently, of an open Robber; he gives theſe Reaſons why he was not puniſhed 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 ſecretly: 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. Coch upon the Gemara of the Sanhedrim, cap. 7. p. 271.) that a meer Thief fears Man more than God; but a Robber fears both alike.
Ver. 5. Verſe 5 Of all that about which he hath ſworn falſly, he ſhall even reſtore it in the principal.] The ſame numerical thing which he took away, if it ſtill remain in his poſſeſſion unalter'd; or elſe the juſt price of it: as R. Levi Barzelonita expounds it, Praecept. CXXV. And the Jews pretend to ſuch ſcrupuloſity in this matter, that they ſay, a Man who was to have a ſhare in his Father's Eſtate, from whom he had 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 ſhall add the fifth part more thereto.] The Jews have many ſubtilties about this, as may be ſeen there ſect. 6, 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 charg'd 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 L. II. de Synedr. cap. 11. p. 506.
And give it unto him to whom it appertaineth.] If he had ſtolen from a Man the ſmalleſt piece of Money, which the Jews call Peruta, and had forſworn it, they fancy he was bound to reſtore it to the Owner himſelf; though he lived as far off as Media: and it would not ſuffice to give it to his Son or his Attorney, whom he had left to act for him. Yet they are ſomething humorſom in theſe Abſurdities, for they do not tye a Man to go ſo far to pay the fifth part; though in a caſe where it was more than a Peruta. See Bava kama, cap. 9. ſect. 5, 6.
In the day of his treſpaſs-offering.] Or, in the day of his treſpaſs; that is, as ſoon as he acknowledgeth his guilt, as this word I ſhowed, v. 4. is to be interpreted. And this agrees with what our bleſſed Saviour requires V Matth. 23.
Ver. 6. Verſe 6 And he ſhall bring his treſpaſs-offering unto the LORD, a Ram without 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 Barzelon. interprets it a Ram worth two Shekels, Praecept. CXXIV.
Ver. 7. Verſe 7 And the Priest ſhall make an atonement for him, &c.] The Offender was not to think he was 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 themſelves 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.
Ver. 8. Verſe 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.
Ver. 9. Verſe 9 Command Aaron and his ſons, ſaying.] As before he bad Moſes ſpeak unto the Children of Iſrael, I Lev. 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.
This 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 Mens ſins, or the Benefits he had beſtowed on them.
It is the burnt-offering.] 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 upon 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 with a quicker fire; that there might be room for other Sacrifices that were commonly offered after it (as appears from v. 12.) and were only offered in the Morning, not at 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 we tranſlate the laſt word not in it, but by it. And the fire of the Altar ſhall be burning (i.e. be fed or maintained) by it.
Ver. 10. Verſe 10 And the Priest ſhall put on his linen garment.] Mentioned XXVIII Exod. 40.
And his linen breeches ſhall he put upon his fleſh.] To cover his Secret Parts, as appears from XXVIII Exod. 42.
And take up the aſhes which the fire hath conſumed with the burnt-offering, &c.] Or rather, When the fire hath conſumed the burnt-offering on the Altar. For the word aſcher, which we here tranſlate which, ſignifies alſo when; and is ſo tranſlated by us, IV. 22. Or elſe the ſenſe muſt be, The aſhes into which the fire hath conſumed the Burnt-offering. Or, to make good our preſent tranſlation, a few words muſt be added, in this manner, The aſhes (of the Wood) which the fire hath conſumed with the Burnt-offering.
And he ſhall put them beſides the Altar.] On the Eaſtpart of it, as far, as might be, from the moſt holy place. See I. 16. For this was moſt ſutable 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.
Ver. 11. Verſe 11 And he ſhall put off his garments.] Thoſe before-named, 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 an 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 an Habit of leſs dignity than thoſe Garments wherein they Miniſtred, which they uſed when they carried out the Aſhes. Thus Maimonides himſelf, and others, mentioned by Mr. Selden, L. III. de Synedr. 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.] See IV. 12. The fore-mentioned 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 Altar 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.
Ver. 12. Verſe 12 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, v. 9. For which there is a juſt reaſon, as Abarbanel 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 be 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 (v. 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 Priest ſhall burn wood on it every morning, &c.] 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, were offered: of which 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 meerly 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 of 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.
Ver. 13. Verſe 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 went 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 Fewel, 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 be 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 foreign, L. II. de Bello Judaico, cap. 31. foreign, &c. it being the Feast of the Wood-carrying; when it was the cuſtom for all to bring up Wood for the Altar: that there might be no want of Fewel for the fire, which was never to go out.
It ſhall never go out.] This was a thing ſo famous, that it was imitated among the Gentiles; who thought it ominous to have their Sacred fire go out: and therefore appointed Perſons on purpoſe to watch it, and keep it perpetually burning, as appears by the Veſtal Virgins at Rome, whoſe great buſineſs it was to look after the Eternal fire, as they called it; imagining the extinction of it purported foreign, the deſtruction of the City, as Dionyſius Halicarn. ſpeaks. This Inſtitution is aſcribed both by him and by Plutarch unto Romulus; into whoſe Hiſtory many things were tranſlated by the ancient Pagans, out of theſe Sacred Records of Moſes: as the Learned Huetius hath made probable in his Demonſtratio Evangel. Propoſ. IV. cap. 9. n. 8. The Greeks alſo preſerved ſuch a foreign, inextinguiſhable fire at Delph; and the Perſians in like manner, and many other People, as Bochartus hath ſhown in his Hierozoicon, P. I. L. II. cap. 35. and Dilheirus before him in a ſpecial Diſſertation (as he calls it) de Catozelia Gentilium, cap. 11. where he hath heaped up a great deal to this purpoſe: and among other things, hath this conjecture, that the Grecian foreign, and the Roman Veſta, had their Names from the Hebrew word Eſch, or the Chaldean Eſcha, which ſignifie fire. The conjecture of David Chytraeus alſo is no leſs ingenious, who derives thoſe Names from Eſchgal, the fire of the LORD.
Ver. 14. Verſe 14 And this is the law of the meat-offering.] He doth not ſpeak of the Offerings which accompanied the daily Burnt-offerings, but of thoſe which were offered alone, mentioned in the ſecond Chapter. Where directions are given of what they ſhould conſiſt; and alſo how much the Prieſt ſhould have for his portion: but here are ſome things added concerning the place where they ſhould be eaten by the Prieſts; and concerning thoſe Meat-offerings, which were peculiarly to be offered for themſelves.
The ſons of Aaron ſhall offer it before the LORD, before the Altar.] Or rather, upon the Altar: for ſo the Hebrew phraſe [on the face of the Altar] ſignifies. Or elſe, the meaning is, he ſhall preſent it to the LORD before the Altar; and then afterward (as is directed in the next Verſe) burn an handful of it upon the Altar. And ſo the Rule is, Chapter ſecond, v. 8, 9. When it is preſented to the Priest, he ſhall bring it to the Altar, &c.
Ver. 15. Verſe 15 And he ſhall take of it his handful, of the flour of the meat-offering, &c.] According to the preſcription in the ſecond Chapter, v. 2. where all this Verſe is explained.
Ver. 16. Verſe 16 And the remainder thereof ſhall Aaron and his ſons eat.] If they had no pollution upon them, XXII. 6. See Chapt. II. 3. The reaſon of the Precept was (as R. Levi Barcel. obſerves, Praecept. CXXXIII.) 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 eaſie and natural. If we tranſlate it, as the Hebrew words plainly ſignifie, unleavened it ſhall be eaten. See 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 XLII Ezek. Which may be confirmed out of XVIII Numb. 10. where the moſt holy place can ſignifie nothing, but the Court of the Prieſts, as L'Empereur rightly underſtands it, in his Annot. upon Middoth, cap. 2. ſect. 6.
In the Court of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, they ſhall eat it.] As the Prieſts did eat it in their own Court, ſo their Male-children had a place in the Court of the Iſraelites, wherein to eat it, X. 12, 13. And they are all ſaid to eat before the LORD, becauſe this was a part of the Tabernacle: as was alſo the Court of the Women; where there was a place for the Prieſt's Daughters to eat, as well as their Sons, of the Firſtlings that were offered to the LORD, XVIII Numb. 19.
Ver. 17. Verſe 17 It ſhall not be baken with leaven.] There were two little rooms, at the Eaſt-gate of the Court 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 v. 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 (Chapt. ſecond, v. 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 made by fire.] That is, of the Meat-offerings before-mentioned.
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 Chapt. ſecond, v. 10.
As is the ſin-offering, and as the treſpaſs-offering.] See v. 26. and VII. 6.
Ver. 18. Verſe 18 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 toucheth 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 be free from any legal defilement, who were admitted to eat of this Offering, XXII. 6. But theſe very words, which we here tranſlate every one, in the 27th Verſe we tranſlate whatſoever: and then the meaning is, Every thing that toucheth them ſhall 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 imployed to any other uſe. See XXIX Exod. 37.
Ver. 19. Verſe 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.
Ver. 20. Verſe 20 This is the offering of Aaron and his ſons, which they ſhall offer unto the LORD.] The Jews call this a Mincah of imitation; 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 Abarbanel in his Preface to this Book, (Section 2.) reckoning the various ſorts of Meat-offerings, makes this the fourth kind; which the High-Prieſt 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, are comprehended in this Verſe. But it may as well be underſtood only of Aaron and his Succeſſors in the Prieſthood, of whom the following words ſeem to ſpeak, and not of the common Prieſts.
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) 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-offering perpetual; half thereof in the morning, and half at night.] The High-Prieſt, ſaith Joſephus, L. III. Antiq. cap. 10. ſacrificed twice every day, at his own charges: and then he deſcribes 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. For that ſeems to have been raw Flower, mixed with Oil; but this baken, as it follows in the next Verſe. See XXIX Exod. 40, 41. The reaſon why it is here mentioned is, becauſe it was a Mincah (or Meat-offering) of whoſe Rites Moſes is treating; and this is an Exception from the reſt.
Ver. 21. Verſe 21 In a pan ſhall it be made with Oil.] With three logs of Oil; as the Jews determine.
And when it is baken.] See v. 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 XII pieces, (as Maimonides ſaith) if of a common Prieſt (for they will have both to be included in this Law) then into X 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.
Ver. 22. Verſe 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, (v. 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, Praecept. CXXXIV.) 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.
Ver. 23. Verſe 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 have been obliged to this; by which means this Meat-offering was offered to God every day, by one or other of them, and never omitted. But Abarbanel, (as I noted before v. 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 which were brought by the People, except one handful which was offered to the LORD. See Chapt. ſecond, v. 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 him both to offer unto God, and to eat of it as if it were his own; as Maimonides ſpeaks, P. III. More Nevoch. cap. 46. or, as R. Levi Barcelonita 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 Mind off from God.
Ver. 24. Verſe 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, (See v. 8, 9.) And therefore the next Verſe begins thus, Speak unto Aaron and his ſons, ſaying.
Ver. 25. Verſe 25 This is the Law of the ſin-offering.] That is, for particular Perſons: that for the Prieſts themſelves being governed by another Law. For it is plain that in the IVth Chapter he diſtinguiſhes the Sin-offerings into two kinds: one, whoſe Blood was carried into the Sanctuary, and the Fleſh of it burnt intirely without the Camp, (v. 7, 8, &c. and here v. 30.) and another, whoſe Blood was not carried into the Sanctuary; the Fleſh of which the Prieſts were to eat, as is here directed.
In the 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. Verſe 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 invite any other Prieſts, and their Sons to partake with him, if he pleaſed; as appears from v. 29. I need not add that the Immurim, as the Hebrews call them, were excepted: that is, the Fat, &c. mentioned III. 9, 10. IV. 26. which were to be wholly burnt upon the Altar.
In the holy place ſhall it be eaten, &c.] See v. 16. For it being moſtly holy (as the words are in the concluſion of the foregoing Verſe) it was to be eaten in the holy place: and that, the ſame day and night when it it was offered; and none of it to be kept till the morning. Whereas ſome of their Peace-offerings (which they called the lighter holy things) might be eaten the next day, VII. 16. See Maimonides More Nevochim, P. 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 his Equites obſerves concerning the Sacrifices offered to Ceres and Proſerpina, foreign.
Ver. 27. Verſe 27 Whoſoever ſhall touch the fleſh thereof ſhall be holy.] See v. 18.
And when 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 ſpurt upon his Clothes; then the waſhing of them, was out of reverence to the Blood; which being holy, was not 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 ſhalt waſh that wherein 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. Verſe 28 But the earthen veſſel wherein it is ſodden, ſhall be broken.] For it being very porous, might ſo deeply 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 have it broken; rather than any thing that was holy, remaining in it, be 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 into a prophane 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 upon the Miſchna of Sota, cap. 3. But they might have rather ſaid, that they were thrown 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 was an holy place.
If it be ſodden in a braſen pot, it ſhall be both ſcoured, and rinſed in water.] Nothing could ſo eaſily ſink into this, being a ſolid metal: but whatſoever 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. So we 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 Zechariah.
Ver. 29. Verſe 29 All the males among the Priests ſhall eat thereof: it is most holy.] See v. 16. and 26.
Ver. 30. Verſe 30 And no ſin-offering.] Or rather, but no Sin-offering.
Whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tabernacle of the Congregation, to reconcile withal in the holy place, ſhall be 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 were to be eaten, but intirely burnt in the fire; as it here follows in the end of this Verſe. There is no neceſſity of Maimonides his obſervation upon theſe words; That no Man whatſoever might eat of theſe Sacrifices: for if the Prieſts might not, they were certainly prohibited to all other Perſons.