Bible Commentaries
Leviticus 22

Verses 1-33

B.—”KEEPING HOLY OF THE SACRIFICE, OR OF WHAT HAS BEEN HALLOWED.—LANGE.

Leviticus 22:1-33

1And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the Lord. 3Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the Lord. 4What man soever of the seed of Aaran is a leper, or hath a running issue; he shall not eat of the holy things, until he be clean. And whoso toucheth any thing that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goeth from him; 5or whosoever toucheth any1 creeping thing, whereby he may be made unclean, or a man of whom he may take uncleanness,2 whatsoever uncleanness he hath; 6the soul which hath touched any such shall be unclean until even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash [bathe3] his flesh with water. 7And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food. 8That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith: I am the Lord. 9They shall therefore keep mine ordinance,4 lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it: I the Lord do sanctify them.

10There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing. 11But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and Hebrews 5:0 that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat [food6]. 12If the priest’s daughter also be married unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things. 13But if the priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as7 in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s meat [food6]: but there shall no stranger eat thereof. 14And if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly [inadvertently8], then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it, and shall give it unto the priest with the holy thing. 15And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer9 unto the Lord; 16or suffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass, when they eat [or, lade themselves with the iniquity of trespass in their eating10] their holy things: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

17And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 18Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers11 in Israel, that will offer his oblation [offering12] for all [any of] his vows, and for all [any of] his free-will offerings, which they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt offering; 19ye shall offer at your own will [for your acceptance13] a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the 20goats. But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you 21And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep [of the flock14], it shall be perfect to be accepted: there shall be no blemish therein. 22Blind, or broken, or maimed,15 or having a wen [or ulcerous16], or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the Lord, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the Lord. 23Either a bullock or a lamb [one of the flock17] that hath anything superfluous18 or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted. 24Ye shall not offer unto the Lord that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof [make such19] in your land. 25Neither from a stranger’s20 hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these; because their corruption is in them, and blemishes be in them: they shall not be accepted for you

26And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 27When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; and from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto 28the Lord. And whether it be cow or ewe [female of the flock21], ye shall not kill it and her young both in one day.

29And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the Lord, offer it at your own will [for your acceptance13]. 30On the same day it shall be eaten up; ye shall leave none of it until the morrow: I am the Lord.

31Therefore shall ye keep my commandments, and do them: I am the Lord. 32Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the Lord which hallow you, 33that brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the Lord.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Leviticus 22:5. The Sam. and LXX. supply the word unclean. According to the law, the “creeping thing” could only communicate uncleanness when dead.

Leviticus 22:5. Rosenmüller translates: or a man who may be unclean on account of it, sc. the creeping thing. He refers the pronoun in לֹו to שֶׁרֶץ

Leviticus 22:6. רָחַץ. See Textual Note 30 on Leviticus 14:8.

Leviticus 22:9. שָׁמְרוּ אֶת־מִשְׁמַרְתִּי The want of an appropriate verb and noun from the same root in English makes it impossible to give the full force of this phrase so often impressively repeated. See Genesis 26:5; Leviticus 8:35; Numbers 3:7; Numbers 9:19. Lange uses a paraphrase: Und sie sollen beobachten, was gegen mich zu beobachten ist.

Leviticus 22:11. The Sam., LXX. and Chald. have the plural.

Leviticus 22:11. בְּלַחְמּוֹ. See Com. on Leviticus 21:6. On the daghesh in the מּ See Textual Note 10 on Leviticus 4:13.

Leviticus 22:13. Sixteen MSS. for the particle of comparison כִּ have בִּ.

Leviticus 22:14. בִּשְׁגָגָה. See Textual Note 1 on Leviticus 4:2.

Leviticus 22:15. יָרִימוּ, lit. which they heave or lift up; but evidently the reference is more general than to the heave-offerings, and the offer of the A. V. is by all means to be retained.

Leviticus 22:16. The sense of this verse is doubtful. The A. V., Patrick, Pool, Keil and others refer the pronouns them and they to the people, and understand the precept that the priests should prevent the people from eating of the holy things which it belonged to the priests to eat; on the other hand, the margin of the A. V., Calvin, Knobel, Zunz, Riggs and Lange understand it as meaning lade themselves with the iniquity of trespass in their eating. The latter is more in accordance with the general subject of the chapter, and is preferable. So the LXX. understood by the use of ἐαυτούς. So Houbigant.

Leviticus 22:18. The Sam., 14 MSS, and all the ancient versions supply that sojourn.

Leviticus 22:18. קָרְבָן. See Textual Note2 on Leviticus 2:1.

Leviticus 22:19. לִרְצנְכֶם. See Textual Note5 on Leviticus 1:3. Comp. also Leviticus 22:21.

Leviticus 22:21. בַצֹּאן includes both sheep (A. V.) and goats (marg.). It is better therefore to use the ordinary comprehensive term.

Leviticus 22:22. On the precise sense of חָרוּץ, the authorities differ. LXX. γλωσσότμητον = having the tongue cut; Targ. Jon. = having the eyelids torn; Jerome, cicatricem habens. The A. V. has followed the Targ. Onk. in a sense which may be considered as sufficiently general to include all the others.

Leviticus 22:22. יַבֶּלֶת, adj. fem. from יָבַּל = to flow. It is ἅπ. λεγ., but there seems no doubt of its meaning.

Leviticus 22:23. שֶׂה is neither specifically a lamb (A. V.) nor a kid (marg.), but may be either. See Textual Note14 on Leviticus 22:21. Gesen.: “a noun of unity corresponding to the collect. צֹאן, a flock, sc. of sheep or goats.”

Leviticus 22:23. שָׂרוּעַ is an animal which has an inequality between the corresponding parts, as the two legs, or two eyes, so that one of them is longer or larger than it should be; while קָלוּט, on the other hand, signifies one having such part smaller than its normally developed fellow.

Leviticus 22:24 According to all authorities the preceding clause refers to the four ways of castration practised among the ancients (see Aristot. hist. an. ix. 37, 3, and the other authorities cited by Knobel and Keil); the latter clause contains, incidentally, an absolute prohibition of such customs in the land, and has nothing to do with sacrifice, there being no word for offering in the Heb. Such is the interpretation of Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 40) and of the Jewish authorities generally. So also the LXX., the Targs., and the Vulg. The sense of the A. V., however, is found in the Syr., and is sustained by Knobel and Lange, who says expressly: “It is particularly to be noticed that castration of animals was not universally forbidden in Israel, only no castrated animals might be offered in sacrifice.”

Leviticus 22:25. בֶּן־נֵכָר, a different word from the זָר of Leviticus 22:10 and the גֵּר of Leviticus 22:18, and probably referring to a foreigner, not even sojourning in the land.

Leviticus 22:28. See Note 17 on Leviticus 22:23. אֹתוֹ וְאֶת־בְּנוֹ in masc. form; but Rosenmüller notes that in regard to brute animals, the verbs, as well as the nouns and adjectives, take no note of sex.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The analysis of this chapter given by Keil is a very clear one. “Leviticus 22:1-16. Reverence for things sanctified.—The law on this matter was (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Leviticus 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat of them who was not a member of the priestly family (Leviticus 22:10-16). Leviticus 22:17-33. Acceptable Sacrifices.” Lange introduces the chapter thus: “The keeping holy of the sacrifice was to correspond to the keeping holy of the priesthood, since this is indeed at the bottom an expression of keeping the priesthood holy. It was most strongly insisted upon.” The centre, however, of the whole Levitical system is rather the sacrifice than the priest, and the priest is for the sake of the sacrifice, as is distinctly brought out in this chapter, rather than the reverse. Certainly the sacrifice was earlier, and the necessity for it more fundamental. The symbolical holiness of the priesthood must therefore be considered as an essential requirement in order to their offering of acceptable sacrifices. Lange thus analyzes the chapter: “a. In relation to the conduct of the priest, Leviticus 22:3-9. b. In relation to the conduct of the laity, Leviticus 22:10-16. c. In relation to the condition of the sacrificial animals, and especially to the fact that everything defective was excluded, Leviticus 22:17-25; but also that every proper offering was to be offered to the Lord in the right way, or to be eaten as a thank-offering, Leviticus 22:26-33.”

The chapter consists of three Divine communications, all given to Moses, the first (Leviticus 22:1-16) to be communicated to Aaron and his sons, prescribing under what conditions the priests are not to touch the offerings (1–9), and who beside the priests might partake of them (10–16); the second (17–25) is to be communicated not only to Aaron, but unto all the children of Israel, determining the quality of the victims; while the third (26–33) is to Moses alone, prescribing certain conditions to be observed with all victims, and concluding the chapter.

Leviticus 22:1-9. For his view of the difficult passage in Leviticus 22:2, “Lange refers to his translation, which runs thus: that they profane not my holy name—even they, who have it in charge to keep holy for Me,” thus referring the relative אֲשֶׁר to the name. Other commentators refer it to the holy things of the children of Israel, as in the A. V., LXX. and Vulg. (Rosenmüller, Knobel, Kalisch, Murphy, Keil, Clark, etc.). The sense of the whole verse is certainly that the priests should not profane the holy gifts of the people by approaching them when themselves in a condition unlawful for priestly ministrations. The expression separate themselves from the holy things is clearly to be understood as meaning under the circumstances mentioned below. “הִנָּזֵר with מִן, to keep away, separate one’s self from anything, i.e. not to regard or treat them as on a par with unconsecrated things.” Keil. The Divine acceptance of the sacrifices was expressed by the priests’ eating certain parts of them as the representatives of God. These were allowed to be eaten by those who were permanently disqualified by physical defects from offering the sacrifices (Leviticus 21:22); but if consumed by those in a state of uncleanness, would be a profanation of the name of the Lord. The prohibition extends not only to the eating, but to the touching them at all. Leviticus 22:3. Shall be cut off from my presence is considered by Rosenmüller and others as equivalent to the expression “shall be cut off from the midst of his people.” A better interpretation (Knobel, Clark) is that it means: “shall be excluded from the sanctuary”—deprived of his priestly office. Lange, however, interprets it that “the penalty of death is pronounced upon every one of the priestly family who approaches the holy things in a state of uncleanness, whether it be to offer or to eat the priestly sacrificial food.” But he afterwards adds: “With the positive death penalty is connected at the same time a mysterious destiny of death, which Jehovah reserves to Himself. The legislation has as yet no idea of the ruder forms of desecration of the sacrifice in the future as e.g.1 Samuel 2:12 sqq.” This was the penalty attached to the violation of any of the precepts in this paragraph. The uncleannesses mentioned in Leviticus 22:4-6 have already been treated in their appropriate places. They are only mentioned here as showing that they excluded the priest from contact with holy things. Leviticus 22:6-7, prescribe for the priest, as for the people in similar cases, the simplest forms of purification, and when these are observed, limit the time of the uncleanness to the going down of the sun. In accordance with the considerate character of the Divine legislation, it then allows him to eat of the sacrifice, because it is his food. In Leviticus 22:8 the eating of that which had not been properly slain, and was therefore still contaminated with the blood, is forbidden with especial emphasis to the priests whose office was to make atonement with the blood. This had already been forbidden to all the people (Leviticus 11:39-40) with but a slight penalty for transgression. Here the transgression for the priest comes under the heavier sentence of Leviticus 22:3. Calvin notes that such a special prohibition was needed lest the priests might think themselves, in virtue of their office, exempt from the laws binding upon the rest of the people. Leviticus 22:9. Lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, gives the penalty in general of a priestly neglect to keep God’s ordinance, but is not necessarily to be understood of the penalty for the breach of each particular precept mentioned. The command here, as everywhere, is made to rest upon the consideration, I the Lord do sanctify them.

Leviticus 22:10-16. This forms the second part of the first Divine communication, and prescribes who beside the priests themselves might or might not eat of the holy things. It has nothing to do with the most holy things which could be eaten only by the priests themselves. “The זָר is the stranger relatively;” accordingly those who are not Israelites, not Levites, not relatives; here, those who are not priests. He might not eat of the holy food of the offerings, however near he might stand to the priest as a neighbor, or a day laborer; but on the other hand, the purchased slave, since he had become by circumcision an Israelite and one of the household of the priest, might certainly eat of it, together with those born in the priest’s house. And here again the house appears in its full theocratic significance. (Comp. Com. on Matt., p. 146.) It results from this, that the married daughter of a priest is excluded; she belonged to another house (if it were a priestly house she might of course eat there with them). Her right revives again, however, if she comes back to her father’s house as a childless widow or divorced; but if she had children, she formed with the children another house. If one who had no right ate of the holy things by mistake, he must make restitution to the priest for what he had eaten, and add a fifth part thereto. “The verse refers only to something unimportant, for in the case of greater things he was commanded, moreover, to offer a trespass offering (Leviticus 5:15).” Knobel. “The difference is in this, that here the subject is the transgression of eating the priestly portion of the heave offering; there, of heedless injury done to the sanctuary in regard to the portion hallowed to Jehovah.” [It seems more probable that the case here referred to is exactly included under that in Leviticus 5:15-16, and that the trespass offering is not expressly mentioned here because it is only necessary to show that this case comes under the category of those for which the trespass offering was required. Calvin well observes that this prohibition was necessary to prevent the “holy things being regarded as common food.”—F. G.] “Here too the law is led back to I the LORD do sanctify them. The history of David (1 Samuel 21:0) and the New Testament explanation of it (Matthew 12:3) show that necessity provided exceptions to this rule. But the rule rests upon the truth that religion must be kept holy, in the strongest sense, even in its sacrifices, otherwise guilt will accumulate upon the people who profess the religion (Leviticus 22:16). When deceit is practised against Jehovah in any way, e.g. by feigned fasts, by asceticism, joined with secret sins, by fanatic faith joined with a life of plunder, the manliness itself of the natural man is buried more and more, and the intercourse of the people loses more and more of its saving salt of moral truth—not to speak of the refining fire of the spirit of the new birth.—When they eat their holy things.—That which as holy things belonged to them no longer.” Lange. On the meaning of the last clause see Textual Note 10. The provision in regard to the purchased servant in Leviticus 22:11 is of importance as showing how completely such servants became identified with the house of their masters. The command was given only about a year after the Exodus when the tribes of Israel doubtless included a large number of the circumcised descendants of the servants of the patriarchs; but there can be no stronger identification than is here given in allowing the purchased servants of the priests from whatever nation, in contradistinction to a servant hired from any other family in Israel, to eat of the priestly portion of the holy things.

Leviticus 22:17-25. Moses is directed to convey this communication unto all the children of Israel, because it was important to have them all entirely familiar with the conditions necessary to an acceptable victim. They were to know all the laws; but their attention would naturally be more fixed upon those which were immediately addressed to them. The law in regard to the victims necessarily applies to all cases, whether they were offered by persons of the house of Israel, or of the strangers (Leviticus 22:18), because it prescribes what was required in the victim itself in order to its acceptance. The burnt offering is first treated of (Leviticus 22:18-20), and then the peace offering. Vow and free-will offerings might be made of either kind of sacrifice; but the regulations concerning the victim differed. If it was a burnt offering, it must be a male, as well as without blemish, according to the law of the burnt offering in Leviticus 1:3; Leviticus 1:10; if it was a peace offering, there was no law concerning the sex of the victim; but it was still required (Leviticus 22:21) there shall be no blemish therein. The rigidness of the law was, however, somewhat relaxed in case of the free-will offering (Leviticus 22:23), so that for this purpose a victim was allowed to have some thing superfluous or lacking in his parts. For the distinction between the vow and the free-will offering, see Com. on Leviticus 7:15. The other kind of peace offering, the thank offering, is not mentioned here; being the highest of all, it of course required the perfect victim. Among the Gentiles also a sense of natural fitness generally required that the victim should be integrus and τελείος. See abundant references in Rosenmüller and Knobel here, in Outram L. I. c. 9, and Bochart Hieroz. I. L. II. c. 46. Leviticus 22:24 absolutely prohibits the offering in sacrifice of any castrated animals. See Textual Note. Lange: “The minute, precise definition of this defect requires the perfect fitness for breeding in the male animals, without which it lost in a great degree its signification of a worthy resignation.” In Leviticus 22:25 the priests are forbidden to accept even from a stranger’s hand victims marked with any of the defects that have been enumerated, because their corruption is in them,i.e. because these defects render them unfit for sacrifice. The bread of your God “must be derived from a perfect victim to represent that which is acceptable to God, which in moral things is perfect righteousness.” Murphy.

Leviticus 22:26-33. The final communication made to Moses alone. Lange: “Even in the case of sacrificial animals without blemish, there yet appear particular conditions of acceptableness for the offerers. First, the victim must be eight days old; it must be kept seven days under the dam to enjoy the full pleasure of existence.” See the same law in Exodus 22:30 in regard to firstlings. “The reason for this was, that the young animal had not attained to a mature and self-sustained life during the first week of its existence.” Keil. It is noticeable that the age at which the animal became admissible for sacrifice is the same as that at which man was received into covenant relation by circumcision. At this age, too, the animal first began to be eatable, and this fact doubtless had its significance in the laws for the symbolical food of Jehovah. Similar restrictions of age were in use among the Romans, Pliny Nat. Hist. viii. 77. The prohibition in Leviticus 22:28 of killing both dam and offspring on the same day is analogous to the thrice repeated precept: “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21), and rests upon the same principle as the prohibition to take from a bird’s nest the mother together with the young (Deuteronomy 22:6-7). All these precepts were of an educational character and imposed upon the Israelites the duty of keeping sacred, even among the lower animals, the relation which God has established between parent and offspring. The law could not have been for the sake of the brute, but was altogether for man’s sake; he must not allow himself to violate the finer susceptibilities implanted in his nature, even when mere utilitarian reasoning could see no use in the command. The Targ. Jon. prefaces the command with the words: “As our Father is merciful in heaven, so be ye merciful on earth.” The connection here applies the precept especially to killing for sacrifice; but it is noticeable that the word used is the more general שָׁחַט, as if the command was meant to apply to all killing whatever. In Leviticus 22:30 the law for eating the thank offering on the same day on which it is presented is repeated from Leviticus 7:15. Such repetitions, if not of necessity, are yet at least highly desirable in a lengthened code of laws. The conclusion, Leviticus 22:31-33, is like that of chapters 18 and 19, and rests upon the fact that He who gives the commands is Jehovah—Jehovah who sanctifies them, and who has brought them up out of the land of Egypt. Lange: “I am Jehovah is said again to seal this command, and the following explanation shows plainly the educational view: that Jehovah seeks to bring them up to be a holy people of God by means of these fixed directions. The educational idea is negative: only certainly no kind of dishonor, or deceit, or faithlessness is allowable in matters of religion.”

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

I. “The symbolical and definite thought of the whole chapter has the highest meaning for every form of religion, but particularly for the Christian Church. It seeks a faultless, normal priesthood, a priesthood which does not darken, but glorifies religion, the service of God. When we think of the sad fact that priests have often altogether, or in a great degree, corrupted their religious community, or are now corrupting it, that so many spiritual and hierarchical cripples of every kind darken and disfigure so many congregations, the contents of our section will give us a strong witness against a laxity and untruth which is guilty especially of the corruption of the religious life. The church training was to be before all things self-training, the ladder of the churchly life. How many reflections in regard to the choice of the theological profession, the tests, the ordinations, and the ecclesiastical visitations belong to this chapter. Also the family circumstances of spiritual persons are here estimated according to their significance.” Lange.
II. The relation of the priests to the people is here again distinctly brought out. They were under precisely the same laws as others, became unclean from the same causes, and were to be purified in the same way; in short, they were fully citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. But inasmuch as they had also special duties toward God, they were incapacitated for their performance by this uncleanness.
III. The identification of the household with its head, always strongly marked in the Hebrew polity, appears in the case of the priest with especial clearness. The family is the unit of the Hebrew commonwealth and the basis of the Mosaic legislation. On this see Maine’s Ancient Law.

IV. The law of the conditions of the acceptable victim was precisely the same for the Israelite and the stranger. The law thus intimates not obscurely that in their approach to God all men stand on precisely the same footing. “There is no distinction of persons.”

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Lange: “Chap. 22 is concerned with the pure conduct of the priests face to face with the sacrifice of the congregation; observances of cleanness of the most varied kind, and especially of sacrifices according to their spiritual meaning.”

As symbolical cleanness was required of those who partook of the sacrifices which typified the death of Christ, so is spiritual cleanness necessary in those who feed upon the memorial of the same. See 1 Corinthians 11:28, etc. Wordsworth. The whole house of the priest was sanctified through him to partake of the holy things; so is the whole house of the Great High Priest sanctified through Him, even His body, the blessed company of all faithful people.

But to be partakers of the table of this Great High Priest men must not be merely sojourners in His house, or serving Him as hired servants for gain, but truly identified with Him, and forming an actual part of His household. Wordsworth.

Again and again the law insists that the victim for the acceptable sacrifice must be without blemish. Whatever is offered to God must be of the best; especially must the offering of the heart be perfect and complete. Christ Himself is described as having offered Himself “without spot,” and the Church which He presents unto Himself must “be holy and without blemish.” Ephesians 5:27.

By forbidding the Israelites to kill on the same day the dam and its offspring God taught them, and through them the church in all ages, to be merciful; not only merciful to those who can understand and appreciate it, but to exercise this virtue for its own sake—to be merciful always and everywhere, even as our Father in heaven is merciful.
Calvin draws from the often repeated and here extended precept that the sacrifice must be perfect and without blemish, this lesson: that whatever we offer to God must be whole-hearted and true. We cannot serve God and mammon. He applies this to prayers in which the heart is not engaged, and a multitude of other things in which man may undertake to offer an imperfect and divided, and therefore unacceptable service.

Footnotes: 

Leviticus 22:5; Leviticus 22:5. The Sam. and LXX. supply the word unclean. According to the law, the “creeping thing” could only communicate uncleanness when dead.

Leviticus 22:5; Leviticus 22:5. Rosenmüller translates: or a man who may be unclean on account of it, sc. the creeping thing. He refers the pronoun in לֹו to שֶׁרֶץ

Leviticus 22:6; Leviticus 22:6. רָחַץ. See Textual Note 30 on Leviticus 14:8.

Leviticus 22:9; Leviticus 22:9. שָׁמְרוּ אֶת־מִשְׁמַרְתִּי The want of an appropriate verb and noun from the same root in English makes it impossible to give the full force of this phrase so often impressively repeated. See Genesis 26:5; Leviticus 8:35; Numbers 3:7; Numbers 9:19. Lange uses a paraphrase: Und sie sollen beobachten, was gegen mich zu beobachten ist.

Leviticus 22:11; Leviticus 22:11. The Sam., LXX. and Chald. have the plural.

Leviticus 22:11; Leviticus 22:11. בְּלַחְמּוֹ. See Com. on Leviticus 21:6. On the daghesh in the מּ See Textual Note 10 on Leviticus 4:13.

Leviticus 22:13; Leviticus 22:13. Sixteen MSS. for the particle of comparison כִּ have בִּ.

Leviticus 22:14; Leviticus 22:14. בִּשְׁגָגָה. See Textual Note 1 on Leviticus 4:2.

Leviticus 22:15; Leviticus 22:15. יָרִימוּ, lit. which they heave or lift up; but evidently the reference is more general than to the heave-offerings, and the offer of the A. V. is by all means to be retained.

Leviticus 22:16; Leviticus 22:16. The sense of this verse is doubtful. The A. V., Patrick, Pool, Keil and others refer the pronouns them and they to the people, and understand the precept that the priests should prevent the people from eating of the holy things which it belonged to the priests to eat; on the other hand, the margin of the A. V., Calvin, Knobel, Zunz, Riggs and Lange understand it as meaning lade themselves with the iniquity of trespass in their eating. The latter is more in accordance with the general subject of the chapter, and is preferable. So the LXX. understood by the use of ἐαυτούς. So Houbigant.

Leviticus 22:18; Leviticus 22:18. The Sam., 14 MSS, and all the ancient versions supply that sojourn.

Leviticus 22:18; Leviticus 22:18. קָרְבָן. See Textual Note2 on Leviticus 2:1.

Leviticus 22:19; Leviticus 22:19. לִרְצנְכֶם. See Textual Note5 on Leviticus 1:3. Comp. also Leviticus 22:21.

Leviticus 22:21; Leviticus 22:21. בַצֹּאן includes both sheep (A. V.) and goats (marg.). It is better therefore to use the ordinary comprehensive term.

Leviticus 22:22; Leviticus 22:22. On the precise sense of חָרוּץ, the authorities differ. LXX. γλωσσότμητον = having the tongue cut; Targ. Jon. = having the eyelids torn; Jerome, cicatricem habens. The A. V. has followed the Targ. Onk. in a sense which may be considered as sufficiently general to include all the others.

Leviticus 22:22; Leviticus 22:22. יַבֶּלֶת, adj. fem. from יָבַּל = to flow. It is ἅπ. λεγ., but there seems no doubt of its meaning.

Leviticus 22:23; Leviticus 22:23. שֶׂה is neither specifically a lamb (A. V.) nor a kid (marg.), but may be either. See Textual Note14 on Leviticus 22:21. Gesen.: “a noun of unity corresponding to the collect. צֹאן, a flock, sc. of sheep or goats.”

Leviticus 22:23; Leviticus 22:23. שָׂרוּעַ is an animal which has an inequality between the corresponding parts, as the two legs, or two eyes, so that one of them is longer or larger than it should be; while קָלוּט, on the other hand, signifies one having such part smaller than its normally developed fellow.

Leviticus 22:24; Leviticus 22:24 According to all authorities the preceding clause refers to the four ways of castration practised among the ancients (see Aristot. hist. an. ix. 37, 3, and the other authorities cited by Knobel and Keil); the latter clause contains, incidentally, an absolute prohibition of such customs in the land, and has nothing to do with sacrifice, there being no word for offering in the Heb. Such is the interpretation of Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 40) and of the Jewish authorities generally. So also the LXX., the Targs., and the Vulg. The sense of the A. V., however, is found in the Syr., and is sustained by Knobel and Lange, who says expressly: “It is particularly to be noticed that castration of animals was not universally forbidden in Israel, only no castrated animals might be offered in sacrifice.”

Leviticus 22:25; Leviticus 22:25. בֶּן־נֵכָר, a different word from the זָר of Leviticus 22:10 and the גֵּר of Leviticus 22:18, and probably referring to a foreigner, not even sojourning in the land.

Leviticus 22:28; Leviticus 22:28. See Note 17 on Leviticus 22:23. אֹתוֹ וְאֶת־בְּנוֹ in masc. form; but Rosenmüller notes that in regard to brute animals, the verbs, as well as the nouns and adjectives, take no note of sex.