2 “Tell Aaron and his sons to separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, which they make holy to me, and that they not profane my holy name. I am Yahweh.
3 “Tell them, ‘If anyone of all your offspring throughout your generations approaches the holy things which the children of Israel make holy to Yahweh, having his uncleanness on him, that soul shall be cut off from before me. I am Yahweh.
4 “‘Whoever of the offspring of Aaron is a leper or has a discharge shall not eat of the holy things until he is clean. Whoever touches anything that is unclean by the dead, or a man who has a seminal emission,
5 or whoever touches any creeping thing by which he may be made unclean, or a man from whom he may become unclean, whatever uncleanness he has—
6 the person that touches any such shall be unclean until the evening, and shall not eat of the holy things unless he bathes his body in water.
7 When the sun is down, he shall be clean; and afterward he shall eat of the holy things, because it is his bread.
8 He shall not eat that which dies of itself or is torn by animals, defiling himself by it. I am Yahweh.
9 “‘They shall therefore follow my commandment, lest they bear sin for it and die in it, if they profane it. I am Yahweh who sanctifies them.
10 “‘No stranger shall eat of the holy thing: a foreigner living with the priests, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
11 But if a priest buys a slave, purchased by his money, he shall eat of it; and those who are born in his house shall eat of his bread.
12 If a priest’s daughter is married to an outsider, she shall not eat of the heave offering of the holy things.
13 But if a priest’s daughter is a widow, or divorced, and has no child, and has returned to her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread; but no stranger shall eat any of it.
14 “‘If a man eats something holy unwittingly, then he shall add the fifth part of its value to it, and shall give the holy thing to the priest.
15 The priests shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer to Yahweh,
16 and so cause them to bear the iniquity that brings guilt when they eat their holy things; for I am Yahweh who sanctifies them.’”
17 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
18 “Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘Whoever is of the house of Israel, or of the foreigners in Israel, who offers his offering, whether it is any of their vows or any of their free will offerings, which they offer to Yahweh for a burnt offering:
19 that you may be accepted, you shall offer a male without defect, of the bulls, of the sheep, or of the goats.
20 But you shall not offer whatever has a defect, for it shall not be acceptable for you.
21 Whoever offers a sacrifice of peace offerings to Yahweh to accomplish a vow, or for a free will offering of the herd or of the flock, it shall be perfect to be accepted. It shall have no defect.
22 You shall not offer what is blind, is injured, is maimed, has a wart, is festering, or has a running sore to Yahweh, nor make an offering by fire of them on the altar to Yahweh.
23 Either a bull or a lamb that has any deformity or lacking in his parts, that you may offer for a free will offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted.
24 You must not offer to Yahweh that which has its testicles bruised, crushed, broken, or cut. You must not do this in your land.
25 You must not offer any of these as the bread of your God from the hand of a foreigner, because their corruption is in them. There is a defect in them. They shall not be accepted for you.’”
26 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
27 “When a bull, a sheep, or a goat is born, it shall remain seven days with its mother. From the eighth day on it shall be accepted for the offering of an offering made by fire to Yahweh.
28 Whether it is a cow or ewe, you shall not kill it and its young both in one day.
6 passages from writers of 2 traditions, in their own words, each with their dates and tradition. The site doesn’t say who is right: read them beside the verses. About these
Reading as
Questions they answer differently
On verse
Oldest first.
Josephus37–c. 100JewishAntiquities of the Jews · on Leviticus 22:2–25He also enjoined them, not only to observe purity in their sacred ministrations, but in their daily conversation, that it might be unblamable also. And on this account it is that those who wear the sacerdotal garments are without spot, and eminent for their purity and sobriety: nor are they permitted to drink wine so long as they wear those garments. Moreover, they offer sacrifices that are entire, and have no defect whatsoever.
He also enjoined them, not only to observe purity in their sacred ministrations, but in their daily conversation, that it might be unblamable also. And on this account it is that those who wear the sacerdotal garments are without spot, and eminent for their purity and sobriety: nor are they permitted to drink wine so long as they wear those garments. Moreover, they offer sacrifices that are entire, and have no defect whatsoever.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Antiquities 3.12.2; translated by William Whiston (1737); the text of Project Gutenberg. The edition
A Jewish priest from Jerusalem who fought Rome in the war of 66–70 and afterwards wrote the history of his people for Greek readers.
John Calvin1509–1564ReformedCommentaries · on Leviticus 22:27–28God forbids the young to be taken from the womb to the altar, … to kill a young animal fresh from the womb would have been a sign of contempt; although regard was also had to humanity, lest, by eating of such sacrifices, they should grow accustomed to cruelty. … I am afraid that the reason which some assign for this is too subtle, viz., that an animal is made perfect in seven days, because God completed the work of creation in seven days. … It is enough for me that regard was had to maturity of age, just as in the case of circumcision. … Though cruelty was indeed condemned in this precept, still I make no doubt but that Moses speaks primarily of the sacrifices. … It is a sight by no means pleasant to gentle minds to see the dam killed together with her young; and, if it were a common custom, men would easily grow callous as to blood-shedding in general. God would therefore not have the exercises of religion disconnected from the duties of humanity; and the tendency of the precept is, that God's altar should not be a Cyclopean slaughter-house.
God forbids the young to be taken from the womb to the altar, … to kill a young animal fresh from the womb would have been a sign of contempt; although regard was also had to humanity, lest, by eating of such sacrifices, they should grow accustomed to cruelty. … I am afraid that the reason which some assign for this is too subtle, viz., that an animal is made perfect in seven days, because God completed the work of creation in seven days. … It is enough for me that regard was had to maturity of age, just as in the case of circumcision. … Though cruelty was indeed condemned in this precept, still I make no doubt but that Moses speaks primarily of the sacrifices. … It is a sight by no means pleasant to gentle minds to see the dam killed together with her young; and, if it were a common custom, men would easily grow callous as to blood-shedding in general. God would therefore not have the exercises of religion disconnected from the duties of humanity; and the tendency of the precept is, that God's altar should not be a Cyclopean slaughter-house.
John Calvin, Commentaries, on 22:27–28; Calvin Translation Society (Edinburgh, 1843–1855); the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
The French reformer of Geneva, from whose teaching the Reformed and Presbyterian churches come.
Matthew Henry1662–1714English PresbyterianCommentary on the Whole Bible · on Leviticus 22:10–13concerning the daughters there was a distinction. While they continued in their father's house they might eat of the holy things; but, if they married such as were not priests, they lost their right (Lev 22:12), for now they were cut off from the family of the priests. Yet if a priest's daughter became a widow, and had no children in whom she might preserve a distinct family, and returned to her father's house again, being neither wife nor mother, she should again be looked upon as a daughter, and might eat of the holy things. If those whom Providence has made sorrowful widows, and who are dislodged from the rest they had in the house of a husband, yet find it again in a father's house, they have reason to be thankful to the widows' God, who does not leave them comfortless. … This law might be dispensed with in a case of necessity, as it was when David and his men ate of the show-bread, Sa1 21:6. And our Saviour justifies them, and gives a reason for it … that God will have mercy and not sacrifice … Rituals must give way to morals.
concerning the daughters there was a distinction. While they continued in their father's house they might eat of the holy things; but, if they married such as were not priests, they lost their right (Lev 22:12), for now they were cut off from the family of the priests. Yet if a priest's daughter became a widow, and had no children in whom she might preserve a distinct family, and returned to her father's house again, being neither wife nor mother, she should again be looked upon as a daughter, and might eat of the holy things. If those whom Providence has made sorrowful widows, and who are dislodged from the rest they had in the house of a husband, yet find it again in a father's house, they have reason to be thankful to the widows' God, who does not leave them comfortless. … This law might be dispensed with in a case of necessity, as it was when David and his men ate of the show-bread, Sa1 21:6. And our Saviour justifies them, and gives a reason for it … that God will have mercy and not sacrifice … Rituals must give way to morals.
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, on 22:10–16; 1706–1714; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
An English Presbyterian minister whose commentary on the whole Bible Protestants have read for three centuries.
John Gill1697–1771BaptistAn Exposition of the Old and New Testament · on Leviticus 22:18–21whatsoever he be of the house of Israel; this phrase includes women and servants, and even Gentiles, as say the Jewish writers … who may vow vows, and make voluntary gifts, as well as the Israelites: or of the strangers in Israel: those of other nations that dwelt there, either proselytes of the gate, or proselytes of righteousness, so Ben Gersom … and though these were both of them sorts of peace offerings, yet they were not received from Gentiles under that notion, but as burnt offerings, because they were offered in devotion to God, and not to be eaten by Israelites … a Gentile that brings peace offerings, they offer them as burnt offerings, because the heart of the Gentile is towards heaven. … it shall be perfect to be accepted; perfect in all its parts, not only in those that are without and obvious to view, but in those that are within … Such sacrifices were typical of Christ, the immaculate Lamb of God, who offered himself without spot to him, 1 Peter 1:19
whatsoever he be of the house of Israel; this phrase includes women and servants, and even Gentiles, as say the Jewish writers … who may vow vows, and make voluntary gifts, as well as the Israelites: or of the strangers in Israel: those of other nations that dwelt there, either proselytes of the gate, or proselytes of righteousness, so Ben Gersom … and though these were both of them sorts of peace offerings, yet they were not received from Gentiles under that notion, but as burnt offerings, because they were offered in devotion to God, and not to be eaten by Israelites … a Gentile that brings peace offerings, they offer them as burnt offerings, because the heart of the Gentile is towards heaven. … it shall be perfect to be accepted; perfect in all its parts, not only in those that are without and obvious to view, but in those that are within … Such sacrifices were typical of Christ, the immaculate Lamb of God, who offered himself without spot to him, 1 Peter 1:19
John Gill, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament, on 22:18 and 22:21; 1746–1763; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
An English Baptist pastor in London and a scholar of Hebrew and the rabbis, who wrote a verse-by-verse commentary on the whole Bible.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brownpublished 1871Presbyterian and AnglicanA Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments · on Leviticus 22:2–9The multitude of minute restrictions to which the priests, from accidental defilement, were subjected, by keeping them constantly on their guard lest they should be unfit for the sacred service, tended to preserve in full exercise the feeling of awe and submission to the authority of God. … But why enact an express statute for priests disqualified by the leprosy or polluting touch of a carcass … when a general law was already in force which excluded from society all persons in that condition? Because priests might be apt, from familiarity, to trifle with religion, and in committing irregularities or sins, to shelter themselves under the cloak of the sacred office. This law, therefore, was passed, specifying the chief forms of temporary defilement which excluded from the sanctuary, that priests might not deem themselves entitled to greater license than the rest of the people; and that so far from being in any degree exempted from the sanctions of the law, they were under greater obligations, by their priestly station, to observe it in its strict letter and its smallest enactments.
The multitude of minute restrictions to which the priests, from accidental defilement, were subjected, by keeping them constantly on their guard lest they should be unfit for the sacred service, tended to preserve in full exercise the feeling of awe and submission to the authority of God. … But why enact an express statute for priests disqualified by the leprosy or polluting touch of a carcass … when a general law was already in force which excluded from society all persons in that condition? Because priests might be apt, from familiarity, to trifle with religion, and in committing irregularities or sins, to shelter themselves under the cloak of the sacred office. This law, therefore, was passed, specifying the chief forms of temporary defilement which excluded from the sanctuary, that priests might not deem themselves entitled to greater license than the rest of the people; and that so far from being in any degree exempted from the sanctions of the law, they were under greater obligations, by their priestly station, to observe it in its strict letter and its smallest enactments.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, on 22:3; 1871; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
Three ministers, two Scottish Presbyterians and an Irish Anglican, whose commentary on the whole Bible was written to be short and plain.
Keil and Delitzsch1807–1888 and 1813–1890LutheranBiblical Commentary on the Old Testament · on Leviticus 22:27–28A young ox, sheep, or goat was to be seven days under its mother, and could only be sacrificed from the eighth day onwards, according to the rule laid down in Exo 22:29 with regard to the first-born. The reason for this was, that the young animal had not attained to a mature and self-sustained life during the first week of its existence. … This maturity was not reached till after the lapse of a week, that period of time sanctified by the creation. … The command not to kill an ox or sheep at the same time as its young is related to the law in Exo 23:19 and Deu 22:6-7, and was intended to lay it down as a duty on the part of the Israelites to keep sacred the relation which God had established between parent and offspring.
A young ox, sheep, or goat was to be seven days under its mother, and could only be sacrificed from the eighth day onwards, according to the rule laid down in Exo 22:29 with regard to the first-born. The reason for this was, that the young animal had not attained to a mature and self-sustained life during the first week of its existence. … This maturity was not reached till after the lapse of a week, that period of time sanctified by the creation. … The command not to kill an ox or sheep at the same time as its young is related to the law in Exo 23:19 and Deu 22:6-7, and was intended to lay it down as a duty on the part of the Israelites to keep sacred the relation which God had established between parent and offspring.
Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, on 22:27 and 22:28–30; translated by James Martin and others (Edinburgh, 1866–1891); the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, two German Lutheran scholars of Hebrew whose commentary on the Old Testament is still read for its learning.
Leviticus 22
Leviticus 22:2–28, World English Bible
Leviticus 22 in the Bible · Told in the Story: Chapter 17, Be Holy
What others have written
6 passages from writers of 2 traditions, in their own words, each with their dates and tradition. The site doesn’t say who is right: read them beside the verses. About these
Oldest first.
Josephus37–c. 100JewishAntiquities of the Jews · on Leviticus 22:2–25He also enjoined them, not only to observe purity in their sacred ministrations, but in their daily conversation, that it might be unblamable also. And on this account it is that those who wear the sacerdotal garments are without spot, and eminent for their purity and sobriety: nor are they permitted to drink wine so long as they wear those garments. Moreover, they offer sacrifices that are entire, and have no defect whatsoever.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Antiquities 3.12.2; translated by William Whiston (1737); the text of Project Gutenberg. The edition
A Jewish priest from Jerusalem who fought Rome in the war of 66–70 and afterwards wrote the history of his people for Greek readers.
John Calvin1509–1564ReformedCommentaries · on Leviticus 22:27–28God forbids the young to be taken from the womb to the altar, … to kill a young animal fresh from the womb would have been a sign of contempt; although regard was also had to humanity, lest, by eating of such sacrifices, they should grow accustomed to cruelty. … I am afraid that the reason which some assign for this is too subtle, viz., that an animal is made perfect in seven days, because God completed the work of creation in seven days. … It is enough for me that regard was had to maturity of age, just as in the case of circumcision. … Though cruelty was indeed condemned in this precept, still I make no doubt but that Moses speaks primarily of the sacrifices. … It is a sight by no means pleasant to gentle minds to see the dam killed together with her young; and, if it were a common custom, men would easily grow callous as to blood-shedding in general. God would therefore not have the exercises of religion disconnected from the duties of humanity; and the tendency of the precept is, that God's altar should not be a Cyclopean slaughter-house.
John Calvin, Commentaries, on 22:27–28; Calvin Translation Society (Edinburgh, 1843–1855); the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
The French reformer of Geneva, from whose teaching the Reformed and Presbyterian churches come.
Matthew Henry1662–1714English PresbyterianCommentary on the Whole Bible · on Leviticus 22:10–13concerning the daughters there was a distinction. While they continued in their father's house they might eat of the holy things; but, if they married such as were not priests, they lost their right (Lev 22:12), for now they were cut off from the family of the priests. Yet if a priest's daughter became a widow, and had no children in whom she might preserve a distinct family, and returned to her father's house again, being neither wife nor mother, she should again be looked upon as a daughter, and might eat of the holy things. If those whom Providence has made sorrowful widows, and who are dislodged from the rest they had in the house of a husband, yet find it again in a father's house, they have reason to be thankful to the widows' God, who does not leave them comfortless. … This law might be dispensed with in a case of necessity, as it was when David and his men ate of the show-bread, Sa1 21:6. And our Saviour justifies them, and gives a reason for it … that God will have mercy and not sacrifice … Rituals must give way to morals.
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, on 22:10–16; 1706–1714; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
An English Presbyterian minister whose commentary on the whole Bible Protestants have read for three centuries.
John Gill1697–1771BaptistAn Exposition of the Old and New Testament · on Leviticus 22:18–21whatsoever he be of the house of Israel; this phrase includes women and servants, and even Gentiles, as say the Jewish writers … who may vow vows, and make voluntary gifts, as well as the Israelites: or of the strangers in Israel: those of other nations that dwelt there, either proselytes of the gate, or proselytes of righteousness, so Ben Gersom … and though these were both of them sorts of peace offerings, yet they were not received from Gentiles under that notion, but as burnt offerings, because they were offered in devotion to God, and not to be eaten by Israelites … a Gentile that brings peace offerings, they offer them as burnt offerings, because the heart of the Gentile is towards heaven. … it shall be perfect to be accepted; perfect in all its parts, not only in those that are without and obvious to view, but in those that are within … Such sacrifices were typical of Christ, the immaculate Lamb of God, who offered himself without spot to him, 1 Peter 1:19
John Gill, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament, on 22:18 and 22:21; 1746–1763; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
An English Baptist pastor in London and a scholar of Hebrew and the rabbis, who wrote a verse-by-verse commentary on the whole Bible.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brownpublished 1871Presbyterian and AnglicanA Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments · on Leviticus 22:2–9The multitude of minute restrictions to which the priests, from accidental defilement, were subjected, by keeping them constantly on their guard lest they should be unfit for the sacred service, tended to preserve in full exercise the feeling of awe and submission to the authority of God. … But why enact an express statute for priests disqualified by the leprosy or polluting touch of a carcass … when a general law was already in force which excluded from society all persons in that condition? Because priests might be apt, from familiarity, to trifle with religion, and in committing irregularities or sins, to shelter themselves under the cloak of the sacred office. This law, therefore, was passed, specifying the chief forms of temporary defilement which excluded from the sanctuary, that priests might not deem themselves entitled to greater license than the rest of the people; and that so far from being in any degree exempted from the sanctions of the law, they were under greater obligations, by their priestly station, to observe it in its strict letter and its smallest enactments.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, on 22:3; 1871; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
Three ministers, two Scottish Presbyterians and an Irish Anglican, whose commentary on the whole Bible was written to be short and plain.
Keil and Delitzsch1807–1888 and 1813–1890LutheranBiblical Commentary on the Old Testament · on Leviticus 22:27–28A young ox, sheep, or goat was to be seven days under its mother, and could only be sacrificed from the eighth day onwards, according to the rule laid down in Exo 22:29 with regard to the first-born. The reason for this was, that the young animal had not attained to a mature and self-sustained life during the first week of its existence. … This maturity was not reached till after the lapse of a week, that period of time sanctified by the creation. … The command not to kill an ox or sheep at the same time as its young is related to the law in Exo 23:19 and Deu 22:6-7, and was intended to lay it down as a duty on the part of the Israelites to keep sacred the relation which God had established between parent and offspring.
Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, on 22:27 and 22:28–30; translated by James Martin and others (Edinburgh, 1866–1891); the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, two German Lutheran scholars of Hebrew whose commentary on the Old Testament is still read for its learning.