Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

offering from the herd and from the flochJ^ jj^ltj {Corhan, from nnpn to cause to draw near, to bring near, or present, an offering) is applied not only to the sacrifices, which were burned either in whole or in part upon the altar (chap. vii. 38; Num. xviii. 9, xxviii. 2, etc.), but to the first-fruits (chap. ii. 12), and dedicatory offerings, which were presented to the Lord for His sanctuary and His service without being laid upon the altar (Num. vii. 3, 10 sqq., xxxi. 50). The word is only used in Leviticus and Numbers, and two passages in Ezekiel (chap. xx. 28, xl. 43), where it is taken from the books of Moses, and is invariably rendered Baypov in the LXX. (cf. Mark vii. 11 " Corbaji, that is to say a gift^'). ^^[]^^ P (from the cattle) belongs to the first clause, though it is separated from it by the Athnach; and the apodosis begins with *>iJ3n |D (^from the herd). The actual antithesis to "the cattle" is "the fowl" in ver. 14; though grammatically the latter is connected with ver. 10, rather than ver. 2. The fowls (pigeons) cannot be included in the behemah, for this is used to denote, not domesticated animals generally, but the larger domesticated quadrupeds, or tame cattle (cf. Gen. i. 25). — Vers. 3-9. Ceremonial connected with the offering of an ox as a hurnt-off'ering. n>V (vid. Gen. viii. 20) is generally rendered by the LXX. oXoKavrcofia or oXoKavTcoai^, sometimes oXoKapTrcofia or 6\oKdp7rcocn<^y in the Vulgate holocaustumj because the animal was all consumed upon the altar. The ox was to be a male without blemish (dficofio^^ integert, i,e. free from bodily faults, see chap. xxii. 19-25), and to be presented "a^ the door of the tahernacle,^^ — i.e. near to the altar of burivt-offering (Ex. xl. 6), where all the offerings were to be presented (chap, xvii. 8, 9), — "/or good pleasure for him (the offerer) before Jehovahj^ i.e. that the sacrifice might secure to him the good pleasure of God (Ex. xxviii. 38). — Yer. 4. ^' He (the offerer) shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering J^ Tiie laying on of hands, by which, to judge from the verb ^Jpp to lean upon, we are to understand a forcible pressure of the hand upon the head of the victim, took place in connection with all the slain-offerings (the offering of pigeons perhaps excepted), and is expressly enjoined in the laws for the burnt-offerings, the peace-offerings (chap. iii. 2, 7, 13), and the sin-offerings (chap. iv. 4, 15, 24, 29, 33), that is to say, in every case in which the details of the ceremonial are minutely described. But if the description is condensed, then no allusion is made to it: e.g. in the burnt-offering of sheep and goats (ver. 11), the sin-offering (chap. V. 6), and the trespass-offering (chap. v. 15, 18, 25). This ceremony was not a sign of the removal of something from his own power and possession, or the surrender and dedication of it to God, as Rosenmuller and KnoheV' affirm; nor an indication of ownership and of a readiness to give up his own to Jehovah, as Bdhr maintains; nor a symbol of the imputation of sin, as Kurtz supposes '? but the symbol of a transfer of the feelings and intentions by which the offerer was actuated in presenting his sacrifice, whereby he set apart the animal as a sacrifice, representing his own person in one particular aspect (see vol. i. p. 279). Now, so far as the burnt-offering expressed the intention of the offerer to consecrate his life and labour to the Lord, and his desire to obtain the expiation of tlie sin which still clung to all his works and desires, in order that they might become well-pleasing to God, he transferred the consciousness of his sinfulness to the victim by the laying on of hands, even in the case of the burnt-offering. But this was not

* Hence KnobeVs assertion (at Lev. vii. 2), that the laying on of the hand upon the head of the animal, which is prescribed in the case of all the other sacrifices, was omitted in that of the trespass- offering alone, needs correction, and there is no foundation for the conclusion, that it did not take place in connection with the trespass -off ening.

2 This was the view held by some of the Rabbins and of the earlier theologians, e.g. Calovius, hibl. ill. ad Lev. i. 4, Lundius and others, but by no means by " most of the Rabbins, some of the fathers, and most of the earlier archaeologists and doctrinal writers," as is affirmed by Bdhr (ii. p. 336), who supports his assertion by passages from Outram^ which refer to the sin-offering only, but which Bdhr transfers without reserve to all the bleeding sacrifices, thus confounding substitution with the imputation of sin, in his antipathy to the orthodox doctrine of satisfaction. Outram^s general view of this ceremony is expressed clearly enough in the following passages: " ritus erat ea notandi ac designandi, qux vel morti devota erant^ vel Dei gratiae commendata^ vel denique gravi alicui muneri usuique sacro destinata. Eique ritui semper adhiberi solebant verba aliqua explicata^ quse ret susceptas rationi maxime congruere viderentur''^ (I.e. 8 and 9). With reference to the words which explained the imposition of hands he observes: " ita ut sacris piacularibus culparum potissimum confessiones cum poenas deprecatione junctas^ voluntariis bonorum precationes^ eucharisticis autem et votivis post res prosperas impetratas periculave depulsa factis laudes et gratiarum actiones, omnique denique victimarum generi ejusmodi preces adjunctas putem^ qum cuique maxime conveniebant " (c. 9).

all: he also transferred the desire to walk before God In holiness and righteousness, which he could not do without the grace of God. This, and no more than this, is contained in the words, " that it may become well-pleasing to him, to make atonement for him." ^B3 with Seghol (Ges. § 52), to expiate (from the Kal "ID3, which is not met with in Hebrew, the word in Gen. vi. 14 being merely a denom, verb, but which signifies texit in Arabic), is generally construed with Py like verbs of covering, and in the laws of sacrifice with the person as the object (" for hirriy^ chap. iv. 26, 31, 35, v. 6, 10 sqq., xiv. 20, 29, etc.; "for them^^ chap. iv. 20, x. 17; "for hevj^ chap. xii. 7; for a soul, chap. xvii. 11; Ex. xxx. 15, cf. Num. viii. 12), and in the case of the sin-offerings with a second obje^ct governed eitlier by pV or IP (^T\mn hv yhv chap. iv. 35, v. 13, 18, or ins^np shv chap. iv. 26, V. 6, etc., to expiate him over or on account of his sin); also, though not so frequently, with *Tyn pers., i^cXd^eaOac irepX avrov (chap.xvi. 6, 24; 2 Chron. xxx. 18), and mm nV3, i^cXd^eadai irepi TTj^ dfj,apTla<; (Ex. xxxii. 30), and with p pers., to permit expiation to be made (Deut. xxi. 8; Ezek. xvi. 63); also with the accusative of the object, though in prose only in connection with the expiation of inanimate objects defiled by sin (chap, xvi. 33). The expiation was always made or completed by the priest, as the sanctified mediator between Jehovah and the people, or, previous to the institution of the Aaronic priesthood, by Moses, the chosen mediator of the covenant, not by "Jehovah from whom the expiation proceeded," as Bdhr supposes. For although all expiation has its ultimate foundation in the grace of God, which desires not the death of the sinner, but his redemption and salvation, and to this end has opened a way of salvation, and sanctified sacrifice as the means of expiation and mercy; it is not Jehovah who makes the expiation, but this is invariably the office or work of a mediator, who intervenes between the holy God and sinful man, and by means of expiation averts the wrath of God from the sinner, and brings the grace of God to bear Upon him. It is only in cases where the word is used in the secondary sense of pardoning sin, or showing mercy, that God is mentioned as the subject (e.g, Deut. xxi. 8; Ps. Ixv. 4, Ixxviii. 38; Jer. xviii. 23).^ The medium of

^ The meaning *' to make atonement" lies at the foundation in every passage in which the word is used metaphorically, such as Gen. xxxii. 21, expiation in the case of the sacrifice was chiefly the blood of the sacrificial animal that was sprinkled upon the altar (chap. xvii. 11); in addition to which, the eating of the flesh of the sin-offering by the priests is also called bearing the iniquity of the congregation to make atonement for them (chap. x. 17). In other cases it was the intercession of Moses (Ex. xxxii. 30); also the fumigation with holy incense, which was a symbol of priestly intercession (Num. xvii. 11). On one occasion it was the zeal of Phinehas, when he stabbed the Israelite with a spear for committing fornication with a Midianite (Num. xxv. 8, 13). In the case of a murder committed by an unknown hand, it was the slaying of an animal in the place of the murderer who remained undiscovered (Deut. xxi. 1-9); whereas in other cases blood-guiltiness (murder) could not be expiated in any other way than by the blood of the person by whom it had been shed (Num. xxxv. 33). In Isa. xxvii. 9, a divine judgment, by where Jacob seeks to expiate the face of his angry brother, i.e. to appease his wrath, with a present; or Prov. xvi. 14, " The wrath of a king is as messengers of death, but a wise man expiates it, i.e. softens, pacifies it;" Isa. xlvii. 11, " Mischief (destruction) will fall upon thee, thou will not be able to expiate it," that is to say, to avert the wrath of God, which has burst upon thee in the calamity, by means of an expiatory sacrifice. Even in Isa. xxviii. 18, "and your covenant with death is disannulled" (annihilated) ("IQ31), the use of the word "1S2 is to be explained from the fact that the guilt, which brought the judgment in its train, could be cancelled by a sacrificial expiation (cf. Isa. vi. 7 and xxii. 14); so that there is no necessity to resort to a meaning which is altogether foreign to the word, viz. that of covering up by blotting over. When Hofmann therefore maintains that there is no other way of explaining the use of the word in these passages, than by the supposition that, in addition to the verb "iQ;: to cover, there was another denominative verb, founded upon the word *iDb a covering, or payment, the stumblingblock in the use of the word lies simply in this, that Hofmann has taken a one-sided view of the idea, of expiation, through overlooking the fact, that the expiation had reference to the wrath of God which hung over the sinner and had to be averted from him by means of expiation, as is clearly proved by Ex. xxxii. 30 as compared with vers. 10 and 22. The meaning of expiation which properly belongs to the verb "iSi3 is not only retained in the nouns cippurim and capporeth^ but lies at the root of the word copker, which is formed from the Kal, as we may clearly see from Ex. xxx. 12-16, where the Israelites are ordered to pay a copher at the census, to expiate their souls, i.e. to cover their souls from the death which threatens the unholy, when he draws near without expiation to a holy God. Vid. Oehler in Herzog's Cycl.

which the nation was punished, is so described, as serving to avert the complete destruction which threatened it. And lastly, it was in some cases a "^SS, such, for example, as the atonementmoney paid at the numbering of the people (Ex. xxx. 12 sqq.), and the payment made in the case referred to in Ex. xxi. 30.

If, therefore, the idea of satisfaction unquestionably lay at the foundation of the atonement that was made, in all those Qases in which it was effected by a penal judgment, or judicial pcena; the intercession of the priest, or the fumigation which embodied it, cannot possibly be regarded as a satisfaction rendered to the justice of God, so that we cannot attribute the idea of satisfaction to every kind of sacrificial expiation. Still less can it be discerned in the slaying of the animal, when simply regarded as the shedding of blood. To this we may add, that in the laws for the siYi-offering there is no reference at all to expiation; and in the case of the burnt-offering, the laying on of hands is described as the act by which it was to become wellpleasing to God, and to expiate the offerer. Now, if the laying on of hands was accompanied with a prayer, as the Jewish tradition affirms, and as we may most certainly infer from Deut. xxvi. 13, apart altogether from Lev. xvi. 21, although no prayer is expressly enjoined; then in the case of the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, it is in this prayer, or the imposition of hands which symbolized it, and by which the offerer substituted the sacrifice for himself and penetrated it with his spirit, that we must seek for the condition upon which the well-pleased acceptance of the sacrifice on the part of God depended, and in consequence of which it became an atonement for him; in other words, was fitted to cover him in the presence of the holiness of God.

Vers. 5-9. The laying on of hands was followed by the slaughtering (^n^, never n^pn to put to death), which was performed by the offerer himself in the case of the private sacrifices, and by the priests and Levites in that of the national and festal offerings (2 Chron. xxix. 22, 24, 34). The slaughtering took place " before Jehovah'^ (see ver. 3), or, according to the more precise account in ver. 11, on the side oQlie aftar northward, for which the expression " before the door of the tabernacle" is sometimes used (chap. ill. 2, 8, 13, etc.). "»iJ3 |3 (a young ox) is appUed to a calf (''JV) in chap. ix. 2, and a mature young bull

(IB) in chap. iv. 3, 14. But the animal of one year old is called ^^V in chap. ix. 2, and the mature ox of seven years old is called "ID in Judg. vi. 25. At the slaughtering the blood was caught by the priests (2 Chron. xxix. 22), and sprinkled upon the altar. When the sacrifices were very numerous, as at the yearly feasts, the Levites helped to catch the blood (2 Chron. xxx. 16); but the sprinkling upon the altar was always performed by the priests alone. In the case of the burnt-offerings, the blood was swung " against the altar round about," Le. against all four sides (walls) of the altar (not "over the surface of the altar"); i.e. it was poured out of the vessel against the w^alls of the altar with a swinging motion. This was also done when peace-offerings (chap. iii. 2, 8, 13, ix. 18) and trespass-offerings (chap. vii. 2) were sacrificed; but it was not so with the sin-offering (see at chap. iv. 5). — Vers. 6 sqq. The offerer was then to flay the slaughtered animal, to cut it (nri: generally rendered fieki^ecv in the LXX.) into its pieces, — i.e. to cut it up into the different pieces, into which an animal that has been killed is generally divided, namely, according to the separate joints, or " according to the bones" (Judg. xix. 29), — that he might boil its flesh in pots (Ezek. xxiv. 4, 6). He was also to wash its intestines and the lower part of its legs (ver. 9). ^"^P, the inner part of the body, or the contents of the inner part of the body, signifies the viscera; not including those of the breast, however, such as the lungs, heart, and liver, to which the term is also applied in other cases (for in the case of the peace-offerings, when the fat which envelopes the intestines, the kidneys, and the liver-lobes was to be placed upon the altar, there is no washing spoken of), but the intestines of the abdomen or belly, such as the stomach and bowels, which would necessarily have to be thoroughly cleansed, even when they were about to be used as food. ^"V']^, which is only found in the dual, and always in connection either with oxen and sheep, or with the springing legs of locusts (chap. xi. 21), denotes the shin, or calf below the knee, or the leg from the knee down to the foot. — Vers. 7, 8. It was the duty of the sons of Aaron, i.e. of the priests, to offer the sacrifice upon the altar. To this end they were to '' put fire upon the altar''* (of course thisonly applies to the first burnt-offering ^presented after, the erection of the altar, as the fire was to be constantly burning upon the altar^after that, without being allowed to go out, vi. 6), and to lay " wood in order upon the jire''* ('^"lij to lay in regular order), and then to " lay the parts, the head and the fat, in order upon the wood on the fire," and thus to cause the whole to ascend in smoke. "17.?? which is only used in connection with the burntoffering (vers. 8, 12, and chap. viii. 20), signifies, according to the ancient versions (LXX. areap) and the rabbinical writers, the fat, probably those portions of fat which were separated from the entrails and taken out to wash. Bocharis explanation is adeps a came sejunctiis. The head and fat ^re specially mentioned along with the pieces of flesh, partly because they are both separated from the flesh when animals are slaughtered, and partly also to point out distinctly that the whole of the animal ("aZ/," ver. 9) was to be burned upon the altar, with tlie exception of the skin, which was given to the officiating priest (chap, vii. 8), and the cotitents of the intestines. "'''PP'?, to cause to ascend in smoke and steam (Ex. xxx. 7), which is frequently construed with '"^nBT^pn towards the altar (n local, so used as to include position in a place; vid, vers. 13, 15, 17, chap ii. 2, 9, etc.), or with nnr^n (chap. vi. 8), or n^TDn-^y (chap. ix. 13, 17), was the technical expression for burning the sacrifice upon the altar, and showed that the intention was not simply to burn those portions of the sacrifice which were placed in the fire, i.e. to destroy, or turn them into ashes, but by this process of burning to cause the odour which was eliminated to ascend to heaven as the ethereal essence of the sacrifice, for a ^^ firing of a sweet savour unto Jehovah," ^^^, firing- (" an offering made by fire," Eng. Yer.), is the general expression used to denote the sacrifices, which ascended in fire upon the altar, whether animal or vegetable (chap. ii. 2, 11, 16), and is also applied to the incense laid upon the show-bread (ch^p. xxiv. 7); and hence the shew-bread itself (chap. xxiv. 7), and even those portions of the sacrifices which Jehovah assigned to the priests for them to eat (Deut. xviii. 1 of. Josh. xiii. 14), came also to be included in the firings for Jehovah. The word does not occur out of the Pentateuch, except in Josh. xiii. 14 and 1 Sam. ii. 28. In the laws of sacrifice it is generally associated with the expression, " a sweet savour unto Jehovah*' [oa/jir) euwS/a?: LXX.): an anthropomorphic description of the divine satisfaction with the sacrifices offered, or the gracious acceptance of them on the part of God (see Gen. viii. 21), which is used in connection with all the

Vers. 10—13. With regard to the mode of sacrificing, the instructions already given for the oxen applied to the flock (i.e, to the sheep and goats) as well, so that the leading points are repeated here, together with a more precise description of the place for slaughtering, viz. " bi/ the side of the altar towards the north,' i.e. on the north side of the altar. This was the rule with all the slain-offerings; although it is only in connection with the burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and trespass-offerings (chap. iv. 24, 29, 33, vi. 18, vii. 2, xiv. 13) that it is expressly mentioned, whilst the indefinite expression "a^ the door (in front) of the tabernacle " is applied to the peace-offerings in chap. iii. 2, 8, 13, as it is to the trespass-offerings in chap. iv. 4, from which the Kabbins have inferred, though hardly upon good ground, that the peace-offerings could be slaughtered in any part of the court. The northern side of the altar was appointed as the place of slaughtering, however, not from the idea that the Deity dwelt in the north {Ewald), for such an idea is altogether foreign to Mosaism, but, as Knobel supposes, probably because the table of shew-bread, with the continual meat-offering, stood on the north side in the holy place. Moreover, the eastern side of the altar in the court was the place for the refuse, or heap of ashes (ver. 16); the ascent to the altar was probably on the south side, as Josephus affirms that it w^as in the second temple (J. de bell. jud. v. 5, 6); and the western side, or the space between the altar and the entrance to the holy place, would unquestionably have been the most unsuitable of all for the slaughtering. In ver. 12 '1^1 i^'NTriNll is to be connected per zeugma with ''"''^^^^ " ^^^ him cut it up according to its parts, and (sever) its head and its fat. ^^

Vers. 14-17. The burnt-offering of fowls was to consist of turtle-doves or young pigeons. The Israelites have reared pigeons and kept dovecots from time immemorial (Isa. Ix. 8, cf. 2 Kings vi. 25); and the rearing of pigeons continued to be a favourite pursuit with the later Jews (Josephus, de bell. jud. v. 4, 4), so that they might very well be reckoned among the domesticated animals. There are also turtle-doves and wild pigeons in Palestine in such abundance, that they could easily furnish the ordinary animal food of the poorer classes, and serve as sacrifices in the place of the larger animals. The directions for sacrificing these, were that the priest was to bring the bird to the altar, to nip off its head, and cause it to ascend in smoke upon the altar. P^D, which only occurs in ver. 15 and chap. v. 8, signifies undoubtedly to pinch off, and not merely to pinch; for otherwise the words in chap. v. 8, "and shall not divide it asunder," would be superfluous. We have therefore to think of it as a severance of the head, as the LXX. {airoKvi^eiv) and Rabbins have done, and not merely a wringing of the neck and incision in the skin by which the head was left hanging to the body; partly because the words, " and not divide it asunder," are wanting here, and partly also because of the words, " and burn it upon the altar," which immediately follow, and which must refer to the head, and can only mean that, after the head had been pinched off, it was to be put at once into the burning altar-fire. For it is obviously unnatural to regard these words as anticipatory, and refer them to the burning of the whole dove; not only from the construction itself, but still more on account of the clause which follows: "and the blood thereof shall be pressed out against the wall of the altar." The small quantity that there was of the blood prevented it from being caught in a vessel, and swung from it against the altar. — Vers. 16, 17. He then took out i^riviii in^?■}p■n^?J i.e.^ according to the probable explanation of these obscure words, " its crop in (with) the foeces thereof, ^^ ^ and threw it " at the side of the altar eastwards" i.e. on the eastern side of the altar, " on the ash-place" where the ashes were thrown when taken from the altar (chap. vi. 3). He then made an incision in the wings of the pigeon, but with-

^ Tliis is the rendering adopted by Onkelos. The LXX., on the contrary, render it oc(pi'hu rov '7^p6'ho6oi/ ovv rol; Trnpoig^ and this rendering is followed by Luther (and the English Version, Tr.), " its crop with its feathers." But the Hebrew for this would have been invllV In Mishnah^ Sebach. vi. 5, the instructions are the following: " et rcmovct iiujltiviejn et pcri7ins ct viscera cgredentia cum illay Tliis interpretation may be substantially correct, although the reference of nnV13!3 to the feathers of the pigeon cannot be sustained on the ground assigned. For if the bird's crop was taken out, the intestines with their contents would unquestionably come out along with it. The plucking off of the feathers, however, follows from the analogy of the flaying of the animal. Only, in the text neither intestines nor feathers are mentioned; they are p;u<sed over as subordinate matters, that could readily be understood from the analogy of the other instructions.

out severing them, and burned them on the altar-jBre (ver. 17, cf. ver. 9).

The burnt-offerings all culminated in the presentation of the whole sacrifice upon the altar, that it might ascend to heaven, transformed into smoke and fragrance. Hence it is not only called np'Vj the ascending (see Gen. viii. 20), but i'v3, a whole-offering (Deut. xxxiii. 10; Ps. li. 21; 1 Sam. vii. 9). If the burning and sending up in the altar-fire shadowed forth the self-surrender of the offerer to the purifying fire of the Holy Ghost (p. 280); the burnt-offering was an embodiment of the idea of the consecration and self-surrender of the w^hole man to the Lord, to be pervaded by the refining and sanctifying power of divine grace. This self-surrender was to be vigorous and energetic in its character; and this was embodied in the instructions to choose male animals for the burnt-offering, the male sex being stronger and more vigorous than the female. To render the self-sacrifice perfect, it was necessary that the offerer should spiritually die, and that through the mediator of his salvation he should put his soul into a living fellowship with the Lord by sinking it as it were into the death of the sacrifice that had died for him, and should also bring his bodily members within the operations of the gracious Spirit of God, that thus he might be renewed and sanctified both body and soul, and enter into union with God.

Chap. ii. The Meat-offering. — The burnt-offerings are followed immediately by the meat-offerings, not only because they were offered along with them from the very first (Gen. iv. 3), but because they stood nearest to them in their general signification. The usual epithet applied to them is minchah, lit. a present with which any one sought to obtain the favour or goodwill of a superior (Gen. xxxii. 21, 22, xliii. 11, 15, etc.), then the gift offered to God as a sign of grateful acknowledgment that the offerer owed everything to Him, as well as of a desire to secure His favour and blessing. This epithet was used at first for animal sacrifices as well as offerings of fruit (Gen. iv. 4, 5). But in the Mosaic law it was restricted to bloodless offerings, i.e. to the meat-offerings, whether ])resented independently, or in connection with tlie animal sacrifices (zchachhn). The full term is korhan minchahj offering of a gift: Sojpov Ovaca or

7rpoa(f)opd, also 6v(Tta alone (LXX.). The meat-offerings consisted of fine wheaten flour (vers. 1-3), or cakes of such flour (vers. 4-6), or roasted grains as an offering of first-fruits (vers. 14-16). To all of them there were added oil (vers. 1, 4-7, 15) and salt (ver. 13); and to those which consisted of flour and grains, incense also (vers. 1 and 15). Only a handful of each kind was burnt upon the altar; the rest was handed over to the priests, as "a thing most holy" (ver. 3).

Vers. 1-3. The Jlrst kind consisted of soleth, probably from n^D =??D to swing, swung flour, like ttoXt} from TraXXco, i.e, fine flour; and for this no doubt wheaten flour was always used, even when I3"'Dn js not added, as in Ex. xxix. 2, to distinguish it from npi^, or ordinary meal (o-e/xtSaXt?: 1 Kings v. 2). The suffix in ^^3"}P (his offering) refers to ti^S?., which is frequently construed as both masculine and feminine (chap. iv. 2, 27, 28, V. 1, etc.), or as masculine only (Num. xxxi. 28) in the sense of person, any one. " And let him pour oil upon it, and put incense thereon (or add incense to it)." This was not spread upon the flour, on which oil had been poured, but added in such a way, that it could be lifted from the minchah and burned upon the altar (ver. 2). The priest was then to take a handful of the gift that had been presented, and cause the azcarah of it to evaporate above (together with) all the incense. ^^'^P &<^p: the filling of his closed hand, i.e, as much as he could hold with his hand full, not merely with three fingers, as the Rabbins affirm. Azcarah (from ^?T, formed like "TJ^^^ from "'^^) is only applied to Jehovah's portion, which was burned upon the altar in the case of the meat-offering (vers. 9, 16, and chap. vi. 8), the sin-offering of flour (chap. v. 12), and the jealousy-offering (Num. V. 26), and to the incense added to the shew-bread (chap. xxiv. 7). It does not mean the prize portion, i.e. the portion offered for the glory of God, as De Dieu and JRosenmuller maintain, still less the fragrance-offering (Ewald), but the memorial, or remembrance-portion, fivrj/jLoavvov or dvd/jivrj- GL^ (chap. xxiv. 7, LXX.), rnemoriale (Vidg.), inasmuch as that part of the minchah which was placed upon the altar ascended in the smoke of the fire " on behalf of the giver, as a practical memento (' remember me') to Jehovah;" though tliere is no necessity that we should trace the word to the Hiphil in consequence. The rest of the minchah was to belong to Aaron and Ills sons, i.e. to the priestliood, as a most lioly thing of the firings of Jehovali. The term " most holy" is apphed to all the sacrificial gifts that were consecrated to Jehovah, in this sense, that such portions as were not burned upon the altar were to be eaten by the priests alone in a holy place; the laity, and even such of the Levites as were not priests, being prohibited from partaking of them (see at Ex. xxvi. 33 and xxx. 10). Thus the independent meat-offerings, which were not entirely consumed upon the altar (vers. 3, 10, vi. 10, x. 12), the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, the flesh of which was not burned outside the camp (chap. vi. 18, 22, vii. 1, 6, x. 17, xiv. 13, Num. xviii. 9), the shew-bread (chap. xxiv. 9), and even objects put under the ban and devoted to the Lord, whether men, cattle, or property of other kinds (chap, xxvii. 28), as well as the holy incense (Ex. xxx. 36), — in fact, all the holy sacrificial gifts, in which there was any fear lest a portion should be perverted to other objects, — were called most holy; whereas the burnt-offerings, the priestly meat-offerings (chap. vi. 12—16) and other sacrifices, which were quite as holy, were not called most holy, because the command to burn them entirely precluded the possibility of their being devoted to any of the ordinary purposes of life.

Vers. 4-11. The second kind consisted of pastry of fine flour and oil prepared in different forms. The Jlrst was maapJieh tannur, oven-baking: by "I'lSri we are not to understand a baker's oven (Hos. vii. 4, 6), but a large pot in the room, such as are used for baking cakes in the East even to the present day (see my Archaol. § 99, 4). The oven-baking might consist either of " cakes of unleavened meal mixed (made) with oil,^^ or of " pancakes of unleavened meal anointed (smeared) with oiir Challoth: probably from p^^ to pierce, perforated cakes, of a thicker kind. Rekikim: from pp'] to be beaten out thin; hence cakes or pancakes. As the latter were to be smeared with oil, we cannot understand Pv3 as signifying merely the pouring of oil upoir the baked cakes, but must take it in the sense of mingled, mixed, i.e, kneaded with oil (ire(\)vpa^evov<^ (LXX.), or according to Hesychius, fieficyfjievovf;), — Vers. 5, 6. Secondly, if the minchah was an offering upon the pan, it was also to be made of fine flour mixed with oil and unleavened. Machahath is a pan, made, according to Ezek. iv. 3, of iron, — no doubt a large iron plate, such as the Arabs still use for baking unleavened bread in large round cakes made flat and thin (^Robinson, Palestine i. 50, ii. 180). These girdles or flat pans are still in use among the Turcomans of Syria and the Armenians (see Burckhardt, Sjr. p. 1003; Tavemier, Reise 1, p. 280), whilst the Berbians and Cabyles of Africa use shallow iron frjing-pans for the purpose, and call them tajen, — the same name, no doubt, as TTj'yavov, with which the LXX. have rendered machabath. These cakes were to be broken in pieces for the minchahj and oil to be poured upon them (the inf. abs. as in Ex. xiii. 3, xx. 8, vid. Ges. § 131, 4); just as the Bedouins break the cakes which they bake in the hot ashes into small pieces, and prepare them for eating by pouring butter or oil upon them. — Ver. 7. Thirdly, " If thy oblation be a tigel-minchah, it shall be made of fine flour with oil" Marchesheth is not a gridiron (€(T')(apa^ LXX.); but, as it is derived from Knn^ ebullivit, it must apply to a vessel in which food was boiled. We have therefore to think of cakes boiled in oil. — Vers. 8-10. The presentation of the minchah " made of these things," i.e. of the different kinds of pastry mentioned in vers. 4-7, resembled in the main that described in vers. 1-3. The IP D^'in in ver. 9 corresponds to the IP |*pi5 in ver. 2, and does not denote any special ceremony of heaving, as is supposed by the Rabbins and many archaeological writers, who understand by it a solemn movement up and down. This will be evident from a comparison of chap. iii. 3 with chap. iv. 8, 31, 35, and vii. 3. In the place of l^pp D^")^ in chap. iv. 8 we find nn=[p y}?\i in chap. iii. 3 (cf. chap. vii. 3),' and instead of nar niK^p tnv "i^'xs in chap. iv. 10, ^H^ "iDin ")K^«3 in chap. iv. 31 and 35; so that IP D"*!!! evidently denotes simply the lifting off or removal of those parts which were to be burned upon the altar from the rest of the sacrifice (cf. Bdhr, ii. 357, and my Archdologie i. p. 244- 5). — In vers. 11-13 there follow two laws which were applicable to all the meat-offerings: viz. to offer nothing leavened (ver. 11), and to salt every meat-offering, and in fact every sacrifice, with salt (ver. 13). Every minchah was to be prepared without leaven: "/or all leaven, and all honey, ye shall not burn a firing of it for Jehovah. As an offering of first-fruits ye may offer them (leaven and honey, i.e. pastry made with them) to Jehovah, but they shall not come upon the altar." Leaven and honey are mentioned together as things which produce fermentation. Honey has also an acidifying or fermenting quality, and was even used for the preparation of vinegar (Plin. h. n. 11, 15; 21, 14). In rabbinical writings, therefore, ^''?1'^ signifies not only dulcedinem admittere, but corrumpsij fermentari^ fermentescere (yid. Buxtorf, lex, cliald, talm, et rabb. p. 500). By "lioney" we are to understand not grape-honey, the dibs of the Arabs, as Raslii and Bdhr do, but the honey of bees; for, according to 2 Chron. xxxi. 5, this alone was offered as an offering of first-fruits along with corn, new wine, and oil; and in fact, as a rule, this was the only honey used by the ancients in sacrifice (see Bochart, Hieroz. iii. pp. 393 sqq.). The loaves of first-fruits at the feast of Weeks were leavened; but they were assigned to the priests, and not burned upon the altar (chap, xxlii. 17, 20). So also were the cakes offered with the vow-offerings, which were applied to the sacrificial meal (chap. vii. 13); but not the shew-bread, as Knobel maintains (see at chap. xxiv. 5 sqq.). Whilst leaven and honey were forbidden to be used with any kind of minchah, because of their producing fermentation and corruption, salt on the other hand was not to be omitted from any sacrificial offering. " Thou shall not let the salt of the covenant of thy God cease from thy meat-offering^^ i.e. thou shalt never offer a meatoffering without salt. The meaning which the salt, with its power to strengthen food and preserve it from putrefaction and corruption, imparted to the sacrifice, was the unbending truthfulness of that self-surrender to the Lord embodied in the sacrifice, by which all impurity and hypocrisy were repelled. The salt of the sacrifice is called the salt of the covenant, because in common life salt was the symbol of covenant; treaties being concluded and rendered firm and inviolable, according to a wellknown custom of the ancient Greeks (see Eustathius ad Iliad, i. 449) which is still retained among the Arabs, by the parties to an alliance eating bread and salt together, as a sign of the treaty which they had made. As a covenant of this kind was called a " covenant of salt," equivalent to an indissoluble covenant (Num. xviii. 19; 2 Chron. xiii. 5), so here the salt added to the sacrifice is designated as salt of the covenant of God, because of its imparting strength and purity to the sacrifice, by which Israel was strengthened and fortified in covenant fellowship with Jehovah. The following clause, " upon (with) every sacrificial gift of thine shalt thou offer salt/' is not to be restricted to the meat-offering, as Knohel supposes, nor to be understood as meaning that the salt was only to be added to the sacrifice externally, to be offered with or beside it; in which case the strewing of salt upon the different portions of the sacrifice (Ezek. xliii. 24; Mark ix. 49) would have been a departure from the ancient law. For korhan without any further definition denotes the sacrificial offerings generally, the bleeding quite as much as the bloodless, and the closer definition of ^V ^^■}P\' (offer upon) is contained in the first clause of the verse, "season with salt." The words contain a supplementary rule which was applicable to every sacrifice (bleeding and bloodless), and was so understood from time immemorial by the Jews themselves (cf. Josephus, Ant. iii. 9, 1).'

Vers. 14-16. The third kind was the meat-offering of firstfruits, i.e. of the first ripening corn. This was to be offered in the form of " ears parched or roasted hy the fire; in other words, to be made from ears which had been roasted at the fire. To this is added the further definition i'?J1? i^3 " rubbed out of fieldfruit." t^na^ from bna^Dna^ to rub to pieces, that which is rubbed to pieces; it only occurs here and in vers. 14 and 16. te"}3 is applied generally to a corn-field, in Isa. xxix. 17 and xxxii. 16 to cultivated ground, as distinguished from desert; here, and in chap, xxiii. 14 and 2 Kings iv. 42, it is used metonymically for field-fruit, and denotes early or the first-ripe corn. Corn roasted by the fire, particularly grains of wheat, is still a very favourite food in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt. The ears are either burnt along with the stalks before they are quite ripe, and then rubbed out in a sieve; or stalks of wheat are bound up in small bundles and roasted at a bright fire, and then the grains are eaten (SeetzeUy i. p. 94, iii. p. 221; Robinson, Biblical Researches, p. 393). Corn roasted in this manner is not so agreeable as when (as is frequently the case in harvest, Ruth ii. 14) the grains of wheat are taken before they are quite dry and hard, and parched in a pan or upon an iron plate, and then eaten either along with or in the place of bread (^Bobinson, Pal. ii. 394). The minchah mentioned here was prepared in the first way, viz. of roasted ears of corn, which were afterwards rubbed to obtain the grains:

* The Greeks and Romans also regarded salt as indispensable to a sacrifice. Maxime in sacris intelligitur auctoritas salis^ quando nulla conjiciuntur sine mola salsa. Plin. h. n. 31, 7 (cf. 41).

it consisted, therefore, not of crushed corn or groats, but only of toasted grains. In the phice of ''vp y^^ we find vp (chap, xxiii. 14), or ^vp (Josh. V. 11), afterwards employed. Oil and incense were to be added, and the same course adopted with the offering as in the case of the offering of flour (vers. 2, 3).

If therefore, all the meat-offerings consisted either of flour and oil, — the most important ingredients in the vegetable food of the Israelites, — or of food already prepared for eating, there can be no doubt that in them the Israelite offered his daily bread to the Lord, though in a manner which made an essential difference between them and the merely dedicatory offerings of the first-fruits of corn and bread. For whilst the loaves of firstfruits were leavened, and, as in the case of the sheaf of firstfruits, no part of them was burnt upon the altar (chap, xxiii. 10, 11, xvii. 20), every independent meat-offering was to be prepared without leaven, and a portion given to the Lord as fire-food, for a savour of satisfaction upon the altar; and the rest was to be scrupulously kept from being used by the offerer, as a most holy thing, and to be eaten at the holy place by the sanctified priests alone, as the servants of Jehovah, and the mediators between Him and the nation. On account of this peculiarity, the meatofferings cannot have denoted merely the sanctification of earthly food, but were symbols of the spiritual food prepared and enjoyed by the congregation of the Lord. If even the earthly life is not sustained and nourished merely by the daily bread which a man procures and enjoys, but by the power of divine grace, which strengthens and blesses the food as means of preserving life; much less can the spiritual life be nourished by earthly food, but only by the spiritual food which a man prepares and partakes of, by the power of the Spirit of God, from the true bread of life, or the word of God. Now, as oil in the Scriptures is invariably a symbol of the Spirit of God as the principle of all spiritual vis vitce (see p. 174), so bread-flour and bread, procured from the seed of the field, are symbols of the word of God (Deut. viii. 3; Luke viii. 11). As God gives man corn and oil to feed and nourish his bodily life, so He gives His people His word and Spirit^ that they may draw food from these for the spiritual life of the inner man. The work of sanctification consists in the operation of this spiritual food, through the right use of the means of grace for growth in pious conversation and good works (Matt. v. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 12). The enjoyment of this food fills the inner man with peace, joy, and blessedness in God. This fruit of the spiritual life is shadowed forth in the meat-offerings. They were to be kept free, therefore, both from the leaven of hypocrisy (Luke xii. 1) and of malice and wickedness (1 Cor. V. 8), and also from the honey of the delicice carnisy because both are destructive of spiritual life; whilst, on the other hand, the salt of the covenant of God (i.e, the purifying, strengthening, and quickening power of the covenant, by which moral conniption was averted) and the incense of prayer were both to be added, in order that the fruit of the spiritual life might become well-pleasing to the Lord. It was upon this signification that the most holy character of the meat-offerings was founded.

D^pr^ nDT. The word shelamim, the singular of which (shelem) is only met with in Amos v. 22, is applied exclusively to these sacrifices, and is derived from 27^^ to be whole, uninjured. It does not mean " compensation or restitution," for which we find the nouns C^c^ (Dcut. xxxii. 35), D^^'^ (Hos. ix. 7), and noi-^tt^ (Ps. xci. 8), formed from the Plel D?^, but integritas completa, pacifica, beata, answering to the Sept. rendering acorijpLov. The plural denotes the entire round of blessings and powers, by which the salvation or integrity of man in his relation to God is established and secured. The object of the shelamim was invariably salvation: sometimes they were offered as an embodiment of thanksgiving for salvation already received, sometimes as a prayer for the salvation desired; so tliat they embraced both supplicatory offerings and thank-offerings, and were offered even in times of misfortune, or on the day on which supplication was offered for the help of God (Judg. xx. 26, xxi. 4; 1 Sam. xiii. 9; 2 Sam xxiv. 25).^ The law distinguishes three different kinds: praise-offerings, vow-offerings, and freewill-offerings (chap. vii. 12, 16). They were all restricted to oxen, sheep, and goats, either male or female, pigeons not being allowed, as they were always accompanied with a common sacrificial meal, for which a pair of pigeons did not suffice.

Vers. 1—5. In the act of sacrificing, the presentation of the animal before Jehovah, the laying on of hands, the slaughtering, and the sprinkling of the blood were the same as in the case of the burnt-offering (chap. i. 3-5). It was in the application of the flesh that the difference first appeared. — Ver. 3. The person presenting the sacrifice was to offer as a firing for Jehovah, j^rsf, "the fat which covered the entrails" (chap. i. 9), i.e. the large net which stretches from the stomach over the bowels and completely envelopes the latter, and which is only met with in the case of men and the mammalia generally, and in the ruminant animals abounds with fat; secondly, " all the fat on the entrails," i.e. the fat attached to the intestines, which could easily be peeled off; thirdly, "the two kidneys, and the fat upon them (and) that upon the loins (D vD3n), i.e. upon the inner muscles of the loins, or in the region of the kidneys; a.n.d fourthly, "the net

^ Cf. Hengstenherg, Dissertations. OutrarrCs explanation is quite correct: Sacrijicia salutaria in sacris litteris shelamim dicta, ut qux semper de rebus prosperis fieri solerent^ impetratis utique aut impetrandis.

upon the liver." The net (^in^l]) upon (/V vers. 4, 10, 15, chap. iv. 9, vii. 4; Ex. xxix. 13), or from (jD chap. ix. 10), or of the liver (chap. viii. 16, 25, ix. 19; Ex. xxix. 22), cannot be the large lobe of the liver, 6 Xo^o'^ tov rj7raTo<i (LXX.), because this is part of the liver itself, and does not lie ^^3n"7V over (upon) the liver; nor is it simply a portion of fat, but the small net (^omentum minus), the liver-net, or stomach-net (reticulum jecoris; Vulg., Luth., De Wette, and Knobel), which commences at the division between the right and left lobes of the liver, and stretches on the one side across the stomach, and on the other to the region of the kidneys. Hence the clause, " on the kidneys (i.e. by them, as far as it reaches) shall he take it away." This smaller net is delicate, but not so fat as the larger net; though it still forms part of the fat portions. The word ^1^^, which only occurs in the passages quoted, is to be explained from the Arabic and Ethiopic (to stretch over, to stretch out), whence also the words "^ni a cord (Jjudg. xvi. 7; Ps. xi. 2), and "iri''D the bowstring (Ps. xxi. 13) or extended tent-ropes (Ex. xxxv. 18), are derived. The four portions mentioned comprehended all the separable fat in the inside of the sacrificial animal. Hence they were also designated "all the fat" of the sacrifice (ver. 16, chap. iv. 8, 19, 26, 31, 35, vii. 3), or briefly "the fat" (:i.^nn ver. 9, chap. vii. 33, xvi. 25, xvii. 6; Num. xviii. 17), "the fat por tions" {n'>2^r\r\ chap. vi. 5, viii. 26, ix. 19, 20, 24, x. 15).— Ver. 5. This fat the priests were to burn upon the altar, over the burnt siicrifice, on the pieces of wood upon the fire. ^7)jr\'?V does not mean " in the manner or style of the burnt-offering " (^Knobel), but "upon (over) the burnt-offering." For apart from the fact that ^V cannot be shown to have this meaning, the peace-offering was preceded as a rule by the burnt-offering. At any rate it was always preceded by the daily burnt-offering, which burned, if not all day, at all events the whole of the forenoon, until it was quite consumed; so that the fat portions of the peace-offerings were to be laid upon the burnt-offering which was burning already. That this is the meaning of np^^"*'? is placed beyond all doubt, both by chap. vi. 5, where the priest is directed to burn wood every morning upon the fire of the altar, and then to place the burnt-offering upon it (fjYi^), and upon that to cause the fat portions of the peace-offerings to evaporate in smoke, and also by chap. ix. 14, where Aaron is said first of all to have burner!

the flesh and head of the burnt-offering upon the altar, then to have washed the er trails and legs of the animal, and burned them on the altar, n7"vn 7^^ ^.g. upon (over) the portions of the burnt-offering that were burning already.

Vers. 6-1 G. The same rules apply to the peace-offerings of sheep and goats, except that, in addition to the fat portions, which were to be burned upon the altar in the case of the oxen (vers. 3, 4) and goats (vers. 14, 15), the fat tail of the sheep was to be consumed as well. HD^Dn n^'bi^ii: " the fat tail whole " (ver. 9), Cauda ovilla vel arieiina eaque crassa et adiposa; the same in Arabic {Ges, thes. p. 102). The fat tails which the sheep have in Northern Africa and Egypt, also in Arabia, especially Southern Arabia, and Syria, often weigh 15 lbs. or more, and small carriages on wheels are sometimes placed under them to bear their weight (Sonniniy R. ii. p. 358; Bochai% Hieroz. i. pp. 556 sqq.). It consists of something between marrow and fat, Ordinary sheep are also found in Arabia and Syria; but ii modern Palestine all the sheep are " of the broad-tailed species.' The broad part of the tail is an excresence of fat, from which the true tail hangs down (Robinson^ Pal. ii. 166). '''Near the rump-hone shall he (the offerer) take it (the fat tail) away^"* i.e, separate it from the body. C^, dir. "Key., is, according to Saad., OS caudcB 5. coccygisj i.e, the rump or tail-bone, w^hich passes over into the vertebrae of the tail (cf. BocJiart, i. pp. 560-1). In vers. 11 and 16 the fat portions which were burned are called "food of the firing for Jehovah," or " food of the firing for a sweet savour," i.e. food which served as a firing for Jehovah, or reached Jehovah by being burned; cf. Num. xxviii. 24, "food of the firing of a sweet savour for Jehovah." Hence not only are the daily burnt-offerings and the burnt and sin-offerings of the different feasts called " food of Jehovah " (" My bread," Num. xxviii. 2); but the sacrifices generally are described as " the food of God" ("the bread of their God," chap. xxi. 6, 8, 17, 21, 22, and xxii. 25), as food, that is, which Israel produced and caused to ascend to its God;n fire as a sweet smelling savour. — Nothing is determined here with regard to the appropriation of the flesh of the peace-offerings, as their destination for a sacrificial meal was already known from traditional custom. The more minute directions for the meal itself are given in chap. vii. 11-36, where the meaning of these sacrifices is more fully explained. — In ver. 17 (ver. 16) the general rule is added, ''all fat belongs to Jehovahj^ and the law, " eat neither fat nor blood" is enforced as " an eternal statute " for the generations of Israel (see at Ex. xii. 14, 24) in all their dwelling-places (see Ex. x. 23 and xii. 20).

Chap. iv. and v. The Expiatory Sacrifices. — The sacrifices treated of in chap, i.— iii. are introduced by their names, as though already known, for the purpose of giving them a legal sanction. But in chap. iv. and v. sacrifices are appointed for different offences, which receive their names for the first time from the objects to which they apply, i.e, from the sin, or the trespass, or debt to be expiated by them: viz. riKt^n sin, i.e. sin-offering (chap. iv. 3, 8, 14, 19, etc.), and D^iJ debt, i.e. debt-offering (chap. V. 15, 16, 19, 25); — a clear proof that the sin and debt-)fferings were introduced at the same time as the Mosaic law. Che laws which follow are distinguished from the preceding mes by the new introductory formula in chap. iv. 1, 2, which is 1 epeated in chap. v. 14. This repetition proves that chap. iv. 2— V. 13 treats of the sin-offerings, and chap, v, 14-26 of the trespass-offerings; and this is confirmed by the substance of the two series of laws.

Chap. iv. 2-Y. 13. The Sin-offerings. — The ritual prescribed for these differed, with regard to the animals sacrificed, the sprinkling of the blood, and the course adopted with the flesh, according to the position which the person presenting them happened to occupy in the kingdom of God. The classification of persons was as follows: (1) the anointed priest (chap. iv. 2-12); (2) the whole congregation of Israel (vers. 13-21); (3) the prince (vers. 22-26); (4) the common people (ver. 2 7- v. 13). In the case of the last, regard was also paid to their circumstances; so that the sin-offerings could be regulated according to the ability of the offerer, especially for the lighter forms of sin (chap. v. 1-13). — Ver. 2. '' If a soul sin in wandering from any (i'SD in a partitive sense) of the commandments of Jehovah, which ought not to be done, and do any one of them ^^ {^^^'9 with |0 partitive, cf. vers. 13, 22, 27, lit. anything of one). This sentence, which stands at the head of the laws for the sin-offerings, shows that the sin-offerings did not relate to sin or sinfulness in general, but to particular manifestations of sin, to certain distinct actions performed by individuals, or by the whole congregation. The distinguishing characteristic of the sin is expressed by the term niic^*3 (in error). No sins but those committed ^Jit^'3 could be expiated by sin-offerings; whilst those committed with a high hand were to be punished by the extermination of the sinner (Num. XV. 27-31). "^JJ^, from i^^ = ^y^ to wander or go wrong, signifies mistake, error, oversight. But sinning " in error^^ is not merely sinning through ignorance (vers. 13, 22, 27, v. 18), hurry, want of consideration, or carelessness (chap. v. 1, 4, 15), but also sinning unintentionally (Num. xxxv. 11, 15, 22, 23); hence all such sins as spring from the weakness of flesh and blood, as distinguished from sins committed with a high (elevated) hand, or in haughty, defiant rebellion against God and His commandments. Vers. 3-12. The sin of the high priest. — The high priest is here called the "anointed priest" (vers. 3, 5, 16, vi. 15) on account of the completeness of the anointing with which he was consecrated to his office (chap. viii. 12); in other places he is called the great (or high) priest (chap. xxi. 10; Num. xxxv. 25, etc.), and by later writers t^^Nin |n3, the priest the head, or head priest (2 Kings xxv. 18; 2 Chron. xix. 11). If he sinned ^^^^^ D^Hj " to the sinning of the nation," i,e. in his official position as representative of the nation before the Lord, and not merely in his own personal relation to God, he was to offer for a sinoffering because of his sin an ox without blemish, the largest of all the sacrificial animals, because he filled the highest post in Israel. — Yer. 4. The presentation, laying on of hands, and slaughtering, were the same as in the case of the other sacrifices (chap. i. 3-5). The first peculiarity occurs in connection with the blood (vers. 5-7). The anointed priest was to take (a part) of the blood and carry it into the tabernacle, and having dipped his finger in it, to sprinkle some of it seven times before Jehovah " in the face of the vail of the Holy^^ (Ex. xxvi. 31), i.e. in the direction towards the curtain; after that, he was to put (|nj) some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of incense, and then to pour out the great mass of the blood, of which only a small portion had been used for sprinkling and smearing upon the horns of the altar, at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering. A sevenfold sprinkling "in the face of the vail" also took place in connection with the sin-offering for the whole congregation, as well as with the ox and he-goat which the high priest offered as sin-offerings on the day of atonement for himself, the priesthood, and the congregation, when the blood was sprinkled seven times before Q?.P?) the capporeth (chap, xvi. 14), and seven times upon the horns of the altar (chap. xvi. 18, 19). So too the blood of the red cow, that was slaughtered as a sin-offering outside the camp, was sprinkled seven times in the direction towal'ds the tabernacle (Num. xix. 4). The sevenfold sprinkling at the feast of atonement had respect to the purification of the sanctuary from the blemishes caused by the sins of the people, with which they had been defiled in the course of the year (see at chap, xvi.), and did not take place till after the blood had been sprinkled once " against (? upon) the capporeth in front" for the expiation of the sin of the priesthood and people, and the horns of the altar had been smeared with the blood (chap. xvi. 14, 18); whereas in the sinofferings mentioned in this chapter, the sevenfold sprinkling preceded the application of the blood to the horns of the altar. This difference in the order of succession of the two manipulations with the blood leads to the conclusion, that in the case before us the sevenfold sprinkling had a different signification from that which it had on the day of atonement, and served as a preliminary and introduction to the expiation. The blood also was not sprinkled upon the altar of the holy place, but only before Jehovah, against the curtain behind which Jehovah was enthroned, that is to say, only into the neighbourhood of the gracious presence of God; and this act was repeated seven times, that in the number seven, as the stamp of the covenant, the covenant relation, which sin had loosened, might be restored. It was not till after this had been done, that the expiatory blood of the sacrifice was put upon the horns of the altar, — not merely sprinkled or swung against the wall of the altar, but smeared upon the horns of the altar; not, however, that the blood might thereby be brought more prominently before the eyes of God, or lifted up into His more immediate presence, as Hofmann and Knohel suppose, but because the significance of the altar, as the scene of the manifestation of the divine grace and salvation, culminated in the horns, as the symbols of power and might (see p. 190). In the case of the sin-offerings for the high priest and the congregation, the altar upon which this took place was not the altar of burnt-offering in the court, but the altar of incense in the lioly place; because both the anointed priest, hy virtue of his calling and consecration as the mediator between the nation and the Lord, and the whole congregation, by virtue of its election as a kingdom of priests (Ex. xix. 6), were to maintain communion with the covenant God in the holy place, the front division of the dwelling-place of Jehovah, and were thus received into a closer relation of fellowship with Jehovah than the individual members of the nation, for whom the court with its altar was the divinely appointed place of communion with the covenant God. The remainder of the blood, which had not been used in the act of expiation, was poured out at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering, as the holy place to which all the sacrificial blood was to be brought, that it might be received into the earth. — Vers. 8-10. The priest was to lift off "a// the fat ^^ from the sacrificial animal, i.e. the same fat por^ tions as in the peace-offering (chap. iii. 3, 4, ^?n"73 is the subject to D^V in ver. 10), and burn it upon the altar of burnt-offering. — Vers. 11, 12. The skin of the bullock, and all the flesh, together with the head and the shank and the entrails (chap. i. 9) and the foeces, in fact the whole bullock, was to be carried out by him (the sacrificing priest) to a clean place before the camp, to which the ashes of the sacrifices were carried from the ashheap (chap. i. 16), and there burnt on the wood with fire. (On the construction of vers. 11 and 12 see Ges. § 145, 2).

The different course, adopted with the blood and flesh of the sin-offerings, from that prescribed in the ritual of the other sacrifices, was founded upon the special signification of these offerings. As they were presented to effect the expiation of sins, the offerer transferred the consciousness of sin and the desire for forgiveness to the head of the animal that had been brought in his stead, by the laying on of his hand; and after this the animal was slaughtered, and suffered death for him as the wages of sin. But as sin is not wiped out by the death of the sinner, unless it be forgiven by the grace of God, so devoting to death an animal laden with sin rendered neither a real nor symbolical satisfaction or payment for sin, by which the guilt of it could be wiped away; but the death which it endured in the sinner's stead represented merely the fruit and effect of sin. To cover the sinner from the holiness of God because of his sin, some of the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled seven times before Jehovah in the holy place; and the covenant fellowship, which had been endangered, was thereby restored. After this, however, the soul, which was covered in the sacrificial blood, was given up to the grace of God that prevailed in the altar, by means of the sprinkling of the blood upon the horns of the altar of incense, that it might receive the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God, and the full enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant be ensured to it once more. But the sin, that had been laid upon the animal of the sin-offering, lay upon it still. The next thing done, therefore, was to burn the fat portions of its inside upon the altar of burnt-offering. Now, if the flesh of the victim represented the body of the offerer as the organ of his soul, the fat portions inside the body, together with the kidneys, which were regarded as the seat of the tenderest and deepest emotions, can only have set forth the better part or inmost kernel of the man, the ecrco dvOpcoTro^ (Rom. vii. 22; Eph. iii. 16). By burning the fat portions upon the altar, the better part of human nature was given up in symbol to the purifying fire of the Holy Spirit of God, that it might be purified from the dross of sin, and ascend in its glorified essence to heaven, for a sweet savour unto the Lord (ver. 31). The flesh of the sin-offering, however, or " the whole bullock," was then burned in a clean place outside the camp, though not merely that it might be thereby destroyed in a clean way, like the flesh provided for the sacrificial meals, which had not been consumed at the time fixed by the law (chap, vii. 17, viii. 32, xix. 6; Ex. xii. 10, xxix. 34), or the flesh of the sacrifices, which had been defiled by contact with unclean objects (chap. vii. 19); for if the disposal of the flesh formed an integral part of the sacrificial ceremony in the case of all the other sacrifices, and if, in the case of the sin-offerings, the blood of which was not brought into the interior of the sanctuary, the priests were to eat the flesh in a holy place, and that not " as a portion assigned to them by God as an honourable payment,' but, according to the express declaration of Moses, " to bear and take away (^K^J) the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them" (chap. x. 17), the burning of the flesh of the sin-offerings, i.e. of the animal itself, the blood of which was not brought into the holy place, cannot have been without significance, or simply the means adopted to dispose of it in a fitting manner, but must also have formed one factor in tlie ceremony of expiation. The burning outside the camp was rendered necessary, because the sacrifice had respect to the expiation of the priesthood, and the flesh or body of the bullock, which had been made rifc<t3n by the laying on of the hand, could not be eaten by the priests as the body of sin, that by the holiness of their official character they might bear and expiate the sin imputed to the sacrifice (see at chap. x. 17). In this case it was necessary that it should be given up to the effect of sin, viz. to death or destruction by fire, and that outside the camp; in other words, outside the kingdom of God, from which everything dead was removed. But, inasmuch as it was sacrificial flesh, and therefore most holy by virtue of its destination; in order that it might not be made an abomination, it was not to be burned in an unclean place, where carrion and other abominations were thrown (chap, xiv. 40, 45), but in the clean place, outside the camp, to which the ashes of the altar of burnt-offering were removed, as being the earthly sediment and remains of the sacrifices that had ascended to God in the purifying flames of the altar-fire.^

Vers. 13-21. Shi of the whole congr^egation, — This is still further defined, as consisting in the fact that the thing was hid {p^V^y from the eyes of the congregation, i.e. that it was a sin

^ The most holy character of the flesh of the sin-offering (chap. vi. 18 sqq.) furnishes no vaUd argument against the correctness of this explanation of the burning; for, in the first place, there is an essential difference between real or inherent sin, and sin imputed or merely transferred; and secondly, the flesh of the sin-offering was called most holy, not in a moral, but only in a liturgical or ritual sense, as subservient to the most holy purpose of wiping away sin; on which account it was to be entirely removed from all appropriation to earthly objects. Moreover, the idea that sin was imputed to the sin-offering, that it was made sin by the laying on of the hand, has a firm basis in the sacrifice of the red cow (Num. xix.), and also occurs among the Greeks (see Oehler in Herzog's Cycl.).

2 In the correct editions D?y3 has dagesh both here and in chap. v. 2, 4, as Belitzsch informs me, according to an old rule in pointing, which required that every consonant which followed a syllable terminating with a guttural should be pointed with dagesh^ if the guttural was to be read with a quiescent sheva and not with chateph. This is the case in *iedx*1 in Gen. xlvi. 29, Ex. xiv. 6, C^yn in Ps. x. 1, and other words in the critical edition of the Psalter which has been carefully revised by Bd,r according to the Masora, and published with an introduction by Delitzsch. In other passages, such as "i^l^'^^^ Ps. ix. 2, iy^^"i?y Ps. xv. 3, etc., the dagesh is introduced which was not known to be such, an act which really violated a commandment of God, though it was not looked upon as sin. Every transgression of a divine command, whether it took place consciously or unconsciously, brought guilt, and demanded a sinoffering for its expiation; and this was to be presented as soon as the sin was known. The sin-offering, which the elders had to offer in the name of the congregation, was to consist of a young ox, and was to be treated like that of the high priest (vers. 14— 23 compared with vers. 3-12), inasmuch as "the whole congregation" included the priesthood, or at any rate was on an equality with the priesthood by virtue of its calling in relation to the Lord, ^pn with 7^ signifies to incur guilt upon (on the foundation of) sin (chap. v. 5, etc.); it is usually construed with an accusative (vers. 3, 28, chap. v. 6, 10, etc.), or with 3, to sin with a sin (ver. 23; Gen. xl'ii. 22). The subject of Dnri (ver. 15) is one of the elders. " The bullock for a sin-offering;" se, the one which the anointed priest offered for his sin, or as it is briefly and clearly designated in ver. 21, " the former bullock" (ver. 12). — Yer. 20. " And let the priest make an atonement for them, that it may he forgiven them,^ or, " so will they be forgiven." This formula recurs with all the sin-offerings (with the exception of the one for the high priest), viz. vers. 26, 31, 35^ v. 10, 13; Num. XV. 25, 26, 28; also with the trespass-offerings, chap. v. 16, 18, 26, xix. 22, — the only difference being, that in the sinofferings presented for defilements cleansing is mentioned, instead of forgiveness, as the effect of the atoning sacrifice (chap. xii. 7, 8, xiv. 20, 53; Num. viii. 21).

Vers. 22-26. The sin of a ruler. — Ver. 22. ^^^: ore, when. K''b^^J is the head of a tribe, or of a division of a tribe (Num. iii. 24,^30, 35).— Ver. 23. ''If (^^, see Ges. § 155, 2) his sin is made known to him,^ i.e. if any one called his attention to the fact that he had transgressed a commandment of God, he was to bring a he-goat without blemish, and, having laid his harld upon it, to slay it at the place of burnt- off'ering; after which the priest was to put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, and pour out the rest of the blood at the foot to prevent the second letter from being lost in the preceding one through the rapidity of reading. — Ewald's conjectures and remarks about this " dagesh, which is found in certain MSS.," is a proof that he was not acquainted with this rule which the Masora recognises.

of the altar, and then to burn the whole of the fat npon the altar, as in the case of the peace-offering (see chap. iii. 3, 4), and thus to make atonement for the prince on account of his sin. D-TV n^V^', or ^'V'^ alone (lit. hairy, shaggy, Gen. xxvii. 11), is the buck-goat, which is frequently mentioned as the animal sacrificed as a sin-offering: e.g., that of the tribe-princes (Num. vii. 16 sqq., xv. 24), and that of the nation at the yearly festivals (chap. xvi. 9, 15, xxiii. 19; Num. xxviii. 15, 22, 30, xxix. 5, IG sqq.) and at the consecration of the tabernacle (chap. ix. 3, 15, x. 16). It is distinguished in Num. vii. 16 sqq. from the attudim, which were offered as peace-offerings, and frequently occur in connection with oxen, rams, and lambs as burnt-offerings and thank-offerings (Ps. 1. 9, 13, Ixvi. 15; Isa. i. 11, xxxiv. 6; Ezek. xxxix. 18). According to Knobel, 'T'V^ D^ty, or "i"'V^*j '^^'^s an old he-goat, the hair of which grew longer with age, particularly about the neck and back, and D"'-Ty n"iW (ver. 28, chap. v. 16) an old she-goat; whilst ^W was the younger he-goat, which leaped upon the does (Gen. xxxi. 10, 12), and, served for slaughtering like lambs, sheep, and goats (Deut. xxxii. 14; Je^;. li. 40). But as the ^'•]V ^W was also slaughtered for food (Gen. xxxvii. 31), and the skins of quite young he-goats are called n'l^Vb' (Gen. xxvii. 23), the difference between "IW and ^^ny is hardly to be sought in the age, but more probably, as Bochart supposes, in some variety of species, in which case seir and seirah might denote the rough-haired, shaggy kind of goat, and attud the buck-goat of stately appearance.

Vers. 27-35. In the case of the sin of a common Israelite ("of the people of the land," i.e. of the rural population, Gen. xxiii. 7), that is to say, of an Israelite belonging to the people, as distinguished from the chiefs who ruled over the people (2 Kings xi. 18, 19, xvi. 15), the sin-offering w^as to consist of a shaggy she-goat without blemish, or a ewe-sheep (ver. 32). The ceremonial in both cases was the same as with the he-goat (vers. 23 sqq.). — ^^ According to the offerings made hy fire unto the Lord^* (ver. 35): see at chap. iii. 5.

Chap. V. 1-13. There follow here three special examples of sin on the part of the common Israelite, all sins of omission and rashness of a lighter kind than the cases mentioned in chap. iv. 27 sqq.; In which, therefore, if the person for whom expiation was to be made was in needy circumstances, instead of a goat or ewe-sheep, a pair of doves could be received as a sacrificial gift, or, in cases of still greater poverty, the tenth of an ephah of fine flour. The following were the cases. The first (ver. 1), when any one had heard the voice of an oath (an oath spoken aloud) and was a witness, i.e. was in a condition to give evidence, whether he had seen what took place or had learned it, that is to say, had come to the knowledge of it in some other way. In this case, if he did not make it known, he was to bear his offence, i,e, to bear the guilt, which he had contracted by omitting to make it known, with all its consequences. Hpijl does not mean a curse in general, but an oath, as an imprecation upon one's self (= the "oath of cursing" in Num. v. 21); and the sin referred to did not consist in the fact that a person heard a curse, imprecation, or blasphemy, and gave no evidence of it (for neither the expression "and is a witness," nor the words "hath seen or known of it," are in harmony with this), but in the fact that one who knew of another's crime, whether he had seen it, or had come to the certain knowledge of it in any other way, and was therefore qualified to appeaf in court as a witness for the conviction of the criminal, neglected to do so, and did not state what he had seen or learned, when he heard the solemn adjuration of the judge at the public investigation of the crime, by which all persons present, who knew anything of the matter, were urged to come forward as witnesses {vid, Oehler in Herzog's Cycl.). fc^^J t>Vj to bear the offence or sin, i.e. to take away and endure its consequences (see Gen. iv. 13), whether they consisted in chastisements and judgments, by which God punished the sin (chap. vii. 18, xvii. 16, xix. 17), such as diseases or distress (Num. v. 31, xiv. 33, 34), childlessness (chap. xx. 20), death (chap. xxii. 9), or extermination (chap. xix. 8, xx. 17; Num. ix. 13), or in punishment inflicted by men (chap. xxiv. 15), or whether they could be expiated by sin-offerings (as in this passage and ver. 17) and other kinds of atonement. In this sense t^ton KK^3 is also sometimes used (see at chap. xix. 17). — Vers. 2, 3. The second was, if any one had touched the carcase of an unclean beast, or cattle, or creeping thing, or the uncleanness of a man of any kind whatever (" with regard to all his uncleanness, with which he defiles himself," i.e. any kind of defilement to which a man is exposed), and " it is hidden from him,^ sc. the uncleanness or defilement; that is to say, if he had unconsciously defiled himself by touching unclean objects, and had consequently neglected the purification prescribed for such cases. In this case, if he found it out afterwards, he had contracted guilt which needed expiation. — Ver. 4. The third was, if any one should " swear to prate with the lips,'* i.e. swear in idle, empty words of the lips, — " to do good or evil,'* i.e, that he would do anything whatever (Num. xxiv. 13; Isa. xli. 23), — ''with regard to all that he speaks idly luith an oath^* i.e. if it related to something which a man had affirmed with an oath in thoughtless conversation, — " and it is hidden from him,'* i.e. if he did not reflect that he might commit sin by such thoughtless swearing, and if he perceived it afterwards and discovered his sin, and had incurred guilt w^ith regard to one of the things which he had thoughtlessly sworn. — Vers. 5, 6. If any one therefore (the three cases enumerated are comprehended under the one expression ^3 n^ni^ for the purpose of introducing the apodosis) had contracted guilt with reference to one of these (the things named in vers. 1-4), and confessed in what he had sinned, he was to offer as his guilt (trespass) to the Lord, for the sin which he had sinned, a female from the flock — for a sin-offering, that the priest might make atonement for him on account of his sin. ^)^^5 (ver. 6) does not mean either guiltoffering or debitum {Knohel), but culpa, delictum, reatus, as in ver. 7: "as his guilt," i.e. for the expiation of his guilt, which he had brought upon himself.

Vers. 7-10. ''But if his hand does not reach what is sufficient for a sheep,** i.e. if he could not afford enough to sacrifice a sheep (" his hand" is put for what his hand acquires), he was to bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, one for the sinoffering, the other for the burnt-offering. The pigeon intended for the sin, i.e. for the sin-offering, he was to bring first of all to the priest, who was to offer it in the following manner. The head was to be pinched off from opposite to its neck, i.e. in the nape just below the head, though without entirely severing it, that is to say, it was to be pinched off sufficiently to kill the bird and allow the blood to flow out. He was then to sprinkle of the blood upon the wall of the altar, which could be effected by swinging the bleeding pigeon, and to squeeze out the rest of the blood against the wall of the altar, because it was a sinoffering; for in the burnt-offering he let all the blood flow out against the wall of the altar (chap. i. 15). What more was done with the pigeon is not stated. Hence it cannot be decided with certainty, whether, after the crop and its contents were removed and thrown upon the ash-heap, the whole of the bird was burned upon the altar, or wliether it fell to the priest, as the Mislinah affirms (Seb. vi. 4), so that none of it was placed upon the altar. One circumstance which seems to favour the statement in the Talmud is the fact, that in the sin-offering of pigeons, a second pigeon w^as to be offered as a burnt-offering, and, according to ver. 10, for the purpose of making an atonement; probably for no other purpose than to burn it upon the altar, as the dove of the sin-offering was not burned, and the sacrifice was incomplete without some offering upon the altar. In the case of sin-offerings of quadrupeds, the fat portions were laid upon the altar, and the flesh could be eaten by the priest by virtue of his office; but in that of pigeons, it was not possible to separate fat portions from the flesh for the purpose of burning upon the altar by themselves, and it would not do to divide the bird in half, and let one half be burned and the other eaten by the priest, as this would have associated the idea of halfness or incompleteness with the sacrifice. A second pigeon was therefore to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering, DS'^'lpS, according to the right laid down in chap. i. 14 sqq., that the priest might make atonement for the offerer on account of his sin, whereas in the sin-offering of a quadruped one sacrificial animal was sufficient to complete the expiation.^

Vers. 11—13. But if any one could not afford even two pigeons, he was to offer the tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a sin-offering. 'i^J J^^n for n^ ^''^n (ver. 7): his hand reaches to anything, is able to raise it, or with an accusative, obtains, gets anything (used in the same sense in chap. xiv. 30, 31), or else absolutely, acquires, or gets rich (chap. xxv. 26, 47). But it was to be offered without oil and incense, because it was a sin-offering, that is to say, " because it was not to have the character of a minchah^' (^Oehler.) But the reason why it was not to have this character was, that only those who were in a state

1 From the instructions to offer two pigeons in order to obtain expiation, it is perfectly evident that the eating of the flesh of the sin-offering on the part of the priest formed an essential part of the act of expiation, and was not merely a kind of honourable tribute, which God awarded to His servants who officiated at the sacrifice.

of grace could offer a mincliah, and not a man who had fallen from grace through sin. As such a man could not offer to the Lord the fruits of the Spirit of God and of prayer, he was not allowed to add oil and incense, as symbols of the Spirit and praise of God, to the sacrifice with which he sought the forgiveness of sin. The priest was to take a handful of the meal offered, and burn it upon the altar as a memorial, and thus make atonement for the sinner on account of his sin. — On " Ids handfiiV^ and " a memoriaV^ {azcarah\ see chap. ii. 2. " In one of these*^ (ver. 13 as in ver. 5): cf. chap. iv. 2. " And let it (the remainder of the meal offered) belong to the priest like the meatoffering;" i.e. as being most holy (chap. ii. 3).

Chap. V. 14-26 (chap. v. 14-vi. 7).^ The Trespass-offerings.— These w^ere presented for special sins, by which a person had contracted guilt, and therefore they are not included in the general festal sacrifices. Three kinds of offences are mentioned in this section as requiring trespass-offerings. The Jirst is, "z/ a soul commit a breach of trust, and sin in going wrong in the holy gifts of Jehovah.^' Pi?^, lit. to cover, hence a^P the cloak, over-coat, signifies to act secretly, unfaithfully, especially against Jehovah, either by falling away from Him into idolatry, by which the fitting honour was withheld from Jehovah (chap, xxvi, 40; Deut. xxxii. 51; Josh. xxii. 16), or by infringing upon His rights, abstracting something that rightfully belonged to Him. Thus in Josh. vii. 1, xxii. 20, it is applied to fraud in relation to that which had been put under the ban; and in Num. V. 12, 27, it is also applied to a married woman's unfaithfulness to her husband: so that sin was called i'Vp, when regarded as a violation of existing rights. " The holy things of Jehovah''^ were the holy gifts, sacrifices, first-fruits, tithes, etc., which were to be offered to Jehovah, and were assigned by Him to the priests for their revenue (see chap. xxi. 22). t^^C "^'^^^^ ^9 ^^ ^<^^" structio prcegnans: to sin in anything by taking away from Jehovah that which belonged to Him. '^•'J^?, in error (see chap. iv. 2): i.e. in a forgetful or negligent way. Whoever sinned in this way was to offer to the Lord as his guilt (see ver.

6) a ram from the flock without blemish for a trespass-offering (lit. guilt-offering) J according to the estimate of Moses, whose place was afterwards taken by the officiating priest (chap, xxvii. 12; Num. xviii. 16). CDvljK^ ^U3 " money of shekels,^ i.e. several shekels in amount, which Abenezra and others have explained, no doubt correctly, as meaning that the ram w^as to be worth more than one shekel, two shekels at least. The expression is probably kept indefinite, for the purpose of leaving some margin for the valuation, so that there might be a certain proportion between the value of the ram and the magnitude of the trespass committed (see Oehler iit sup. p. 645). " /?i the holy shekel:''* see Ex. xxx. 13. At the same time, the culprit was to make compensation for the fraud committed in the holy thing, and add a fifth (of the value) over, as in the ^ease of the redemption of the first-born, of the vegetable tithe, or of what had been vowed to God (chap, xxvii. 27, 31, and xxvii. 13, 15, 19). The cere mony to be observed in the offering of the ram is described in chap. vii. 1 sqq. It w^as the same as that of the sin-offerings, w^hose blood was not brought into the holy place, except with regard to the sprinkling of the blood, and in this the trespassoffering resembled the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings.

The second case (vers. 17-19), from its very position between the other two, which both refer to the violation of rights, must belong to the same category; although the sin is introduced with the formula used in chap. iv. 27 in connection with those sins which were to be expiated by a sin-offering. But the violation of rifT^ht can only have consisted in an invasion of Jehovah's rights with regard to Israel, and not, as Knohel supposes, in au invasion of the rights of private Israelites, as distinguished from the priests; an antithesis of which there is not the slightest indication. This is evident from the fact, that the case before us is linked on to the previous one without anything intervening; whereas the next case, w^hich treats of the violation of the rights of a neighbour, is separated by a special introductory formula. The expression, '^ and ivist it not,^ refers to ignorance of the sin, and not of the divine commands; as may be clearly seen from ver. 18: "the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his error, which he committed without knowing it." The trespass-offering was the same as in the former case, and was also to be valued by the priest; but no compensation is mentioned, probably because the violation of riglit, which consisted in the transgression of one of the commands of God, was of such a kind as not to allow of material compensation.

The third case (chap. vi. 1-7, or vers. 20-26) is distinguished from the other two by a new introductory formula. The sin and unfaithfulness to Jehovah are manifested in this case in a violation of the rights of a neighbour. "7/* a man deny to his neighbour (^H!) with a double ^ obj.^ to deny a thing to a person) a pikkadon {i.e. a deposit, a thing entrusted to him to keep, Gen. xli. 36), or T riD^b'rij " a thing placed in his hand^^ (handed over to him as a pledge) ''or ^t3, a thing robbed'^'' {i.e. the property of a neighbour unjustly appropriated, whether a well, a field, or cattle. Gen. xxi. 25; Micah ii. 2; Job xxiv. 2), ''or if he have oppressed his neighbour" {i.e. forced something from him or withheld it unjustly, chap. xix. 13; Deut. xxiv. 14: Hos. xii. 8; Mai. iii. 5), " or have found a lost thing and denies it, and thereby swears to his lie " {i.e. rests his oath upon a lie), " on account of one of all that a man is accustomed to do to sin therewith:" the false swearing here refers not merely to a denial of what is found, but to all the crimes mentioned, which originated in avarice and selfishness, but through the false swearing became frauds against Jehovah, adding guilt towards God to the injustice done to the neighbour, and requiring, therefore, not only that a material restitution should be made to the neighbour, but that compensation should be made to God as well. Whatever had been robbed, or taken by force, or entrusted or found, and anything about which a man had sworn falsely (vers. 23, 24), was to be restored "according to its sum" (cf. Ex. xxx. 12, Num. i. 2, etc.), i.e. in its full value; beside which, he was to "add its fifths" (on the plural, see Ges. § 87, 2; Ew. § 186 e), i.e. in every one of the things abstracted or withheld unjustly the fifth part of the value was to be added to the full amount (as in ver. 16). "To him to whom it (belongs), shall he give it" inwx U)^^: in the day when he makes atonement for his trespass, i.e. offers his trespass-offering. The trespass (guilt) against Jehovah was to be taken away by the trespass-offering according to the valuation of the priest, as in vers. 15, 16, and 18, that he might receive expiation and forgiveness on account of what he had done.

difference between the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings,^ we look at once at the other cases, for which trespass-offerings were commanded in the law; we find in Num. v. 5-8 not onlv a trespass against Jehovah, but an unjust withdrawal of the property of a neighbour, clearly mentioned as a crime, for which material compensation was to be made with the addition of a fifth of its value, just as in vers. 2-7 of the present chapter. So also the guilt of a man who had lain with the slave of another (Lev. xix. 20-22) did not come into the ordinary category of adultery, but into that of an unjust invasion of the domain of another's property; though in this case, as the crime could not be estimated in money, instead of material compensation being made, a civil punishment (viz. bodily scourging) was to be inflicted; and for the same reason nothing is said about the valuation of the sacrificial ram. Lastly, in the trespass-offerings for the cleansing of a leper (chap. xiv. 12 sqq.), or of a Nazarite who had been defiled by a corpse (Num. vi. 12), it is true we cannot show in what definite way the rights of Jehovah were violated (see the explanation of these passages), but the sacrifices themselves served to procure the restoration of the persons in question to certain covenant rights which they had lost; so that even here the trespass-offering, for which moreover only a male sheep was demanded, was to be regarded as a compensation or equivalent for the rights to be restored. From all these cases it is perfectly evident, that the idea of satisfaction for a right, which had been violated but was about to be restored or recovered, lay at the foundation of the trespass-offering,^ and the. ritual also points to this. The animal sacrificed was always a ram, except in the cases mentioned in chap. xiv. 12 sqq. and Num. vi. 12. This fact alone clearly distinguishes the trespass-offerings from the sin-offerings, for which all kinds of sacrifices were offered from

^ Even in the case of the trespass-oifering, which those who had taken heathen wives offered at Ezra's instigation (Ezra x. 18 sqq.), it had reference to a trespass (cf. vers. 2 and 10), an act of unfaithfulness to Jehovah, which demanded satisfaction. And so again the Philistines (1 Sam. vi. 3 sqq.), when presenting gifts as a trespass-offering for Jehovah, rendered satisfaction for the robbery committed upon Him by the removal of the ark of the covenant.

an ox to a pigeon, the choice of tlie animal being regulated by the position of the sinner and the magnitude of his sin. But they are distinguished still more by the fact, that in the case of all the sin-offerings the blood was to be put upon the horns of the altar, or even taken into the sanctuary itself, whereas the blood of the trespass-offerings, like that of the burnt and peaceofferings, was merely swung against the wall of the altar (chap, vii. 2). Lastly, they were also distinguished by the fact, that in the trespass-offering the ram was in most instances to be valued by the priest, not for the purpose of determining its actual value, which could not vary very materially in rams of the same kind, but to fix upon it symbolically the value of the trespass for which compensation was required. Hence there can be no doubt, that as the idea of the expiation of sin, which was embodied in the sprinkling of the blood, was most prominent in the sin-offerino^ • so the idea of satisfaction for the restoration of rights that had been violated or disturbed came into the foreground in the trespass-offering. This satisfaction was to be actually made, wherever the guilt admitted of a material valuation, by means of payment or penance; and in addition to this, the animal was raised by the priestly valuation into the authorized bearer of the satisfaction to be rendered to the rights of God, through the sacrifice of which the culprit could obtain the expiation of his guilt.

The instructions contained in these two chapters were made known to " Aaron and his sons " (chap. vi. 9, 20, 25), i.e. to the priests, and relate to the duties and rights ^vhich devolved upon, and pertained to, the priests in relation to the sacrifices. Although many of the instructions are necessarily repeated from the general regulations, as to the different kinds of sacrifice and the mode of presenting them; most of them are new, and of great importance in relation to the institution of sacrifice generally.

Chap. vi. 8-13 (Heb. vers. 1-6). The Law of the Burnt-offering commences the series, and special reference is made to the daily burnt-offering (Ex. xxix. 38-42). — Yer. 2. "/i5, the burnt-offering y shall (burn) upon the hearth upon the altar the whole night till the morning^ and the Jire of the altar be kept burning with it^ The verb ^\>y^ is wanting in the first clause, and only introduced in the second; but it belongs to the first clause as well. The pronoun fc^^n at the opening of the sentence cannot stand for the verb to be in the imperative. The passages, which Knobel adduces in support of this, are of a totally different kind. The instructions apply primarily to the burnt-offering, which was offered every evening, and furnished the basis for all the burnt-offerings (Ex. xxix. 38, 39; Num. xxxiii. 3, 4). — Yers. 3, 4. In the morning of every day the priest was to put on his linen dress (see Ex. xxviii. 42) and the white drawers, and lift off, i,e. clear away, the ashes to which the fire had consumed the burnt-offering upon the altar (^D^5 is construed with a double accusative, to consume the sacrifice to ashes), and pour them down beside the altar (see chap. i. 16). The \ in I'^D is not to be regarded as the old form of the connecting vowel, as in Gen. i. 24 (Ewald, § 211 b; see Ges, § 90, 36), but as the suffix, as in 2 Sam. xx. 8, although the use of the suffix with the governing noun in the construct state can only be found in other cases in the poetical writings (cf. Ges, § 121 b; Ewaldy 291 b). He was then to take off his official dress, and having put oil other (ordinary) clothes, to take away the ashes from the court, and carry them out of the camp to a clean place. The priest was only allowed to approach tlie altar in his official dress; but he could not go out of the camp with this. — Ver. 12. The fire of the altar was also to be kept burning " with it " (i2, viz. the burnt-offering) the whole day through without going put. For this purpose the priest was to burn wood upon it (the altar-fire), and lay the burnt-offering in order upon it, and cause the fat portions of the peace-offerings to ascend in smoke, — that is to say, whenever peace-offerings were brought, for they wer6 not prescribed for every day. — Yer. 13. Fire was to be kept constantly burning upon the altar without going out, not in order that the heavenly fire, which proceeded from Jehovah when Aaron and his sons first entered upon the service of the altar after their consecration, and consumed the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, might never be extinguished (see at chap. ix. 24); but that the burnt-offering might never go out, because this was the divinely appointed symbol and visible sign of the uninterrupted worship of Jehovah, which the covenant nation could never suspend either day or night, without being unfaithful to'its calling. For the same reason other nations also kept perpetual fire burning upon the altars of their principal gods. (For proofs, see Roseruniiller and Knohel ad A. /.)

Vers. 14-18. The Law of the Meat-offering. — The regulations in vers. 14, 15, are merely a repetition of chap. ii. 2 and 3; but in vers. 16-18 the new instructions are introduced with regard to what was left and had not been burned upon the altar. The priests were to eat this as unleavened, Le. to bake it without leaven, and to eat it in a holy place, viz. in the court of the tabernacle. ^'^^'^ ^^^^ in ver. 16 is explained by " z< shall riQt be haken with leaven^* in ver. 17. It was the priests* share of the firings of Jehovah (see chap. i. 9), and as such it was most holy (see chap. ii. 3), like the sin-offering and trespass-offering (vers. 25, 26, chap. vii. 6), and only to be eaten by the male members of the families of the priests. This was to be maintained as a statute for ever (see at chap. iii. 17). " Every one that touches them (the most holy offerings) becomes holyT t^^p^ does not mean he shall be holy, or shall sanctify himself (LXX., Vulg.^ Luth., a Lap., etc.), nor he is consecrated to the sanctuary and is to perform service there (Theodor., Knobelj and others). In this provision, which was equally applicable to the sin-offering (ver. 27), to the altar of the burnt-offering (Ex. xxix. 37), and to the most holy vessels of the tabernacle (Ex. XXX. 29), the word is not to be interpreted by Num. xvii. 2, 3, or Deut xxii. 9, or by the expression " shall be holy " in chap, xxvii^ 10, 21, and Num. xviii. 10, but by Isa. Ixv. 5, "touch me not, for I am holy." The idea is this, every layman who touched these most holy things became holy through the contact, so that henceforth he had to guard against defilement in the same manner as the sanctified priests (chap. xxi. 1-8), though without sharing the priestly rights and prerogatives. This necessarily placed him in a position which would involve many inconveniences in connection with ordinary life.

Vers. 19-23. The Meat-offering of the Priests is introduced, as a new law^^ with a special formula, and is inserted here in its proper place in the sacrificial instructions given for the priests, as it would have been altogether out of place among the general laws for the laity. In " the day of his anointing ' (riK^Hj construed as a passive with the accusative as in Gen. iv. 18), Aaron and his sons were to offer a corhan as " a perpetual meat-offering^^ (minchah, in the absolute instead of the construct state: cf. Ex. xxix. 42, Num. xxviii. 6; see Ges. § 116, 6, Note b); and this was to be done in all future time by " the priest who was anointed of his sons in his steady' that is to say, by every high priest at the time of his consecration. ''In the dny of his anointing: " when the anointing was finished, the seven were designated as " the day,^ like the seven days of creation in Gen. ii. 4. This minchah was not offered during the seven days of the anointing itself, but after the consecration w^as finished, i.e., in all probability, as the Jewish tradition assumes, at the begiiming of the eighth day, when the high priest entered upon his oflice, viz. along with the daily morning sacrifices (Ex. xxix. 38, 39), and before the offering described in chap. ix. It then continued to be offered, as "a perpetual minchah^^ every morning and evening during the whole term of his office, according to the testimony of the Book of Wisdom (chap. xlv. 14, where we cannot suppose the daily burnt-offering to be intended) and also of Josephus (Ant. iii. 10, 7).^ It was to consist of the tenth of an ephah of fine flour, one half of which was to be presented in the morning, the other in the evening; — not as flour, however, but made in a pan with oil, ^' roasted^' and t]"'riQ rin^p ^ysn Q' broken pieces of a miiichah of crumbs "), i.e. in broken pieces, like a minchah composed of crumbs. ri^nnD (ver. 14 and 1 Chron. xxiii. 29) is no doubt synonymous with ^??1P ripb, and to be understood as denoting fine flour sufficiently burned or roasted in oil; the meaning mixed or mingled does not harmonise with chap. vii. 12, where

^ Vid. Lundius^ jiid. Heiliythiimer^ B. 3, c 9, § 17 and 19; Thalhofer ut svpra, p. 139; and Delitzsch on the Epistle to the Hebrews. The text evidently enjoins the offering of this mincJiah upon Aaron alone; for though Aaron and his sons are mentioned in ver. 13, as they were consecrated together, in ver. 15 the priest anointed of his sons in Aaron's stead, i.e. the successor of Aaron iti the high-priesthood, is commanded to offer it. Consequently the view maintained by Maimonides^ Aharhanel^ and others, which did not become general even among the Rabbins, viz. that every ordinary priest was required to offer this meat-offering when entering upon his office, has no solid foundation in the law (see Selden de success, in poritif. ii. c. 9; V Empereur ad Middoth 1, 4, Not. 8; and Thalhofer, p. 150).

the mixing or kneading with oil is expressed by |pt^3 npl73. The hapax legonienon V/QJj^ signifies either broken or baked, according as we suppose the word to be derived from the Arabic ^\ diminult, or, as Gesenius and the Kabbins do, from riDK to bake, a point which can hardly be decided with certainty. This minchahj which was also instituted as a perpetual ordinance, was to be burnt entirely upon the altar, like every meat-offering presented by a priest, because it belonged to the category of the burnt-offerings, and of these meat-offerings the offerer himself had no share (chap. ii. 3, 10). Origen observ^es in his homil, iv. in Levit.: In cceteris quidem prceceptis pontifex in offerendis sacrijiciis populo prcehet officiunij in hoc vero mandato quce propria sunt curat et quod ad se spectat exequitur. It is also to be observed that the high priest was to offer only a bloodless minchah for himself, and not a bleeding sacrifice, which would have pointed to expiation. As the sanctified of the Lord, he was to draw near to the Lord every day with a sacrificial gift, which shadowed fortLthe fruits of sanctificatlon.

Vers. 24-30. The Law of the Sin-offering, which is introduced with a new introductory formula on account of the interpolation of vers. 19-23, gives more precise instructions, though chiefly with regard to the sin-offerings of the laity, first as to the place of slaughtering, as in chap. iv. 24, and then as to the most holy character of the flesh and blood of the sacrifices. The flesh of these sin-offerings was to be eaten by the priest who officiated at a holy place, in the fore-court (see ver. 16). Whoever touched it became holy (see at ver. 18); and if any one sprinkled any of the blood upon his clothes, whatever the blood was sprinkled upon was to be washed in a holy place, in order that the most holy blood might not be carried out of the sanctuary into common life along with the sprinkled clothes, and thereby be profaned. The words " thou shall wash^^ in ver. 20 are addressed to the priest. — Yer. 28. The flesh was equally holy. The vessel, in which it was boiled for the priests to eat, was to be broken in pieces if it were of earthenware, and scoured (P"]b Pual) and overflowed with water, i.e, thoroughly rinsed out, if it w^ere of copper, lest any of the most holy flesh should adhere to the vessel, and be desecrated by its being used in the preparation of common food, or for other earthly purposes. It was possible to prevent this desecration in the case of copper vessels by a thorough cleansing; but not so with earthen vessels, which absorb the fat, so that it cannot be removed by washing. The latter therefore were to be broken in pieces, i.e, thoroughly destroyed. On the other hand, earthen vessels that had been defiled were also ordered to be broken to pieces, though for the very opposite reason (see chap. xi. 33, 35). — Vers. 29, 30. The flesh of the sin-offering was to be eaten after it had been boiled, like the meat-offering (vers. 16 and 18), by the males among the priests alone. But this only applied to the sin-offerings of the laity (chap. iv. 22-v. 13). The flesh of the sin-offerings for the high priest and the whole congregation (chap. iv. 1-21), th^ blood of which was brought into the tabernacle " to make atonement in the sanctuary," i.e. that the expiation with the blood might be completed there, was not to be eaten, but to be burned with fire (chap. iv. 12, 21). — On the signification of this act of eating the flesh of the sin-offering, see at chap. x. 17.