sorts before they were two He shall offer it of his own voluntary will In this Translation we follow the Opinion of the Jews who refer this to the Persons that brought this Offering which they might do when they pleased The like expressions we read XIX 5. XXII 19. But the LXX thought it hath respect to God and so the Phrase may be interpreted he shall bring it for his acceptation i. e. that he may find a favourable acceptance with God At the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation Where the Altar of Burnt-offering was placed XL Exod 6 29. And this was so necessary that it is required upon pain of death to be brought hither and offered in no other place XVII 3 4 c. For which cause it is likely the Door of the Tabernacle is here mentioned rather than the Altar that it might be understood to be unlawful to offer at any other Altar but that which stood at the door of the Tabernacle Before the LORD With their Faces towards that holy place where the Divine Majesty dwelt unto whom the Sacrifice was brought and at the door of the Tabernacle received by the Priest from the hand of the Offerer Ver. 4. Verse 4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the Burnt-offering Both his hands as some gather from XVI 21. and as Maimonides saith he was to do it with all his might This was a Rite belonging to Peace-offerings as well as to Burnt-offerings III. 2. and to Sin-offerings also IV. 4. The meaning of which in this sort of Offerings seems to have been that he who brought the Sacrifice renounced all his Interest in it and transferred it wholly to God unto whose Service he intirely devoted it It being like to the old Ceremony among the Romans who laid their hands upon their Servants when they gave them their Liberty and abdicated their own Right in them saying Hunc hominem liberum esse volo I will that this Man be free which was called Manumission In other Offerings it had another meaning as I shall observe in due place and it was imitated by the Gentiles though not without the addition of impious Superstitions For they wreathed back the Head of the Beast upward when they sacrificed to the Gods above and thrust down its Head towards the Ground when they sacrificed to their Infernal Deities as J. Brentius hath observed in his Preface to this Book And it shall be accepted for him to make an atonement for him It shall be so acceptable as to recommend him to the favour of the Divine Majesty For so the Hebrew word Capher seems here to signifie not properly to make an Atonement which was the business of a Sin-offering but to own him to be in a state of Reconciliation with God unto whom he was supposed to give up himself wholly as he did this Beast The Jews indeed who stick to the literal signification of the word fancy that these Burnt-offerings expiated evil Thoughts and Desires but there is no ground for this in Scripture and the most that can be made of it is that God accepted his Prayers which he made in general for the forgiveness of all his sins when he laid his Hand upon the Head of this Sacrifice For it must be here observed that Laying on of Hands was always accompanied with Prayer as appears by Jacob's laying them on the Head of Manasseh and Ephraim XLVIII Gen. 14 16 20. and the High-Priest laying them on the Scape-goat XVIth of this Book 21. Insomuch that laying on of hands signifies sometimes in the New Testament to pray XIX Matth. 15. V Mark 23. and other places But if a Man had committed any sin there are other Sacrifices peculiarly appointed by the Law for their Expiation which he was bound to offer with confession of sin and prayer to God for pardon Ver. 5. Verse 5 And he shall kill the Bullock That is the Man himself who brought it as Rasi interprets it or one of the Levites as others understand it For they killed the Paschal Lamb at that great Passover mentioned 2 Chron. XXX 17. as Bochart observes But he should have added the reason of it which Rasi there gives that a great many of the Congregation having not sanctified themselves as we read in that place therefore the Levites had the charge of the killing of the Passover for every one that was not clean to sanctifie them unto the LORD Otherwise every Man might kill his own Passover XII Exod. 6. as they might do all their other Sacrifices For certain it is this was none of the works of Priests as Maimonides shows in a passage mentioned by Dr. Cudworth in his Book concerning the Lord's Supper p. 27. out of Biath Hammik-dath Where he quotes this very place to prove That the killing of the holy things might lawfully be done by a Stranger yea of the most holy things whether they were the holy things of private Persons or of the whole Congregation The common Objection to this is That none might come into the Court where the Altar was but the Priests To which the Answer is plain That upon this occasion other Persons might come so far within the Court be cause it was indispensably necessary that the Man who brought the Sacrifice should lay his hand upon the Head of it which was to be done at the Altar when it was to be slain Before the LORD See v. 3. And the Priests Aarons sons shall bring the blood Now begins the work of the Priests the receiving of the Blood and that which immediately followed belonging to their Office They received it in a Bason XXIV Exod. 6. as the manner also was among the Heathen which our learned Sheringham observes upon Codex Joma p. 85. out of Homer's Odyss L. III. where Thrasymedes is represented as cutting the Ox asunder with a Cleaver and Perseus as receiving the Blood in a Bason which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A word used in Crete as Eustathius notes for such kind of Vessels which some think was originally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the receiving of the Blood And sprinkle the blood round about upon the Altar c. That this might be done readily one Priest received the Blood and another took it from him and sprinkled it about the Altar or as the Jews understand it on every side of the Altar which they performed by two sprinklings at the opposite Corners of it Which was a Rite also used in Peace-offerings and Trespass-offerings but in Sin-offerings the Blood was poured out at the foot of the Altar See VII 2. Thus the Heathen also themselves took care the Blood of their Sacrifices should not run upon the ground but be received as I said in Vessels prepared for that purpose and then poured upon their Altars and so offered and consecrated to their Gods So Lucian in his Book of Sacrifices represents the Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as pouring the Blood upon the
the voice of swearing and is a witness Being adjured in the Name of God when he is called to be a Witness in a Cause to speak the Truth For Judges had this power to use such Adjurations that they might either draw a Confession from an accused Person or a faithful Testimony from a Witness Of the former of which there is a solemn Form remaining in Scripture 1 Kings XXII 16. 2 Chron. XVIII 15. as Grotius hath observed upon XXVI Matth. 63. And Dr. Hammond upon the same place hath observed instances of the latter 1 Kings VII 31. XXIX Prov. 24. And Micah's Mother seems by her own Authority to have adjured her Family as they dreaded the Vengeance of the Divine Majesty to discover if they knew any thing of the Eleven hundred Shekels of Silver which had been stoln from her XVII Judg. 2. In all which Cases Men were bound to answer as much as if they had taken a solemn Oath so to do Insomuch that our blessed LORD himself being thus adjured made an Answer to the Court of Judgment though before he had stood silent Whether he hath seen or known of it Whether he can say any thing of the Matter in question either from his own Knowledge or from the Information of credible Persons If he do not utter it Declare what he knows being thus adjured Then he shall bear his iniquity Let him not think it is no offence to suppress the Truth when he is so solemnly admonished to declare it but offer such a Sacrifice for his sin as is prescribed v. 1. which belongs to all the following Cases The Jews make four sorts of Oaths in their Courts or commerce one with another as Mr. Selden hath observed out of their Writers L. II. de Synedr cap. 11. n. 8. which are rash Oaths vain Oaths of which they also make four sorts Oaths about Trusts mentioned VI. 2 3. and this which they call the Oath of Testimony which they say every Man was bound to give before the Sanhedrim when he was required With this distinction between Capital and Pecuniary Causes that in the latter a Man was not bound to come and testifie unless he was cited by the Plaintiff or by the Court but in Capital Causes and in such things as the Law prohibited as if a Man saw another smite his Neighbour he was bound to come of his own accord without any Summons and give his Testimony in Court Yet in this they make some difference as may be seen in R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CXX They who would see more of these several sorts of Oaths among the Jews may find them consider'd in Sam. Petitus his Var. Lectiones cap. 16. And such a Law as this there was anciently in other Countries that he who saw a Crime committed if he could not hinder it should be bound at least to prosecute the Malefactor So the Egyptian Lawgiver saith concerning Theft which a Man saw committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prosecute the Law against that Crime So Plato uses the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. IV. de Legibus saying that he who knew of such a Fact or had certain Information of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and doth not prosecute the Person that did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be liable to the same punishment See Henr. Stephanus his Praefat. ad Fontes Juris Civilis Ver. 2. Verse 2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast c. The Hebrew Doctors expound this of such Persons as having touched any of the unclean things which are mentioned in this Verse and in the next came into the Sanctuary or did eat of the holy things Which they gather out of VII 20 21. and XIX Numb 20. where cutting off is threatned to those who knowingly were so guilty For otherwise it was sufficient for a Man's Expiation who touched any unclean thing to wash himself and his uncleanness lasted only till the Evening See Chap. XI and Numb XIX But why may it not be meant of those who neglected to wash themselves Who were to expiate that neglect by a Sacrifice He also shall be unclean and guilty Obliged to offer the Sacrifice prescribed v. 6. for eating that which is holy saith Rasi or coming into the Sanctuary Ver. 3. Verse 3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man c. Such uncleannesses as are mentioned in the XIIth XIIIth and XVth Chapters of this Book And if it be hid from him when he knoweth of it then he shall be guilty The words may be translated Whether he did it ignorantly or had some knowledge of it and yet offended he shall be obliged to offer the Sacrifice mentioned v. 6. Ver. 4. Verse 4 Or if a soul swear This the Hebrew Doctors expound of that sort of Oath which they call futil or rash when a Man saith he hath done or will do or not do a thing that is in his power to do Pronouncing with his mouth It was to be uttered in words and not meerly thought in his mind To do evil or good That he hath done a thing or not done it of whatsoever kind it be or that he will or will not do it For these four kinds of Oaths of this sort the Hebrew Doctors make two about things past and two about things to come See Selden de Synedr L. II. cap. 11. n. 8. As if he swear that he did eat or he did not eat of such a meat did talk or not talk with Reuben or Simeon c. Rasi thinks by doing good is meant something for his own advantage and consequently by doing evil we are to understand afflicting himself or punishing his Servant c. But it may as well be understood generally of all things whatsoever which are comprehended under the name of good and evil And it be hid from him He did not rightly understand or consider the thing about which he sware whether it was in his power for instance to do what he swore he would do or whether he could lawfully do it or if through forgetfulness he omitted to do what he might have done Some interpret these and the following words as those of the foregoing Verse He shall be guilty in one of these Obliged to offer a Sacrifice as it follows v. 6. if he have sworn rashly in any of the foregoing instances Ver. 5. Verse 5 And it shall be when he shall be guilty in one of these things that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing When he laid his hand upon the Head of his Sacrifice this Confession of his Offence it is likely was made without which his Sacrifice would have been of no avail So all the Hebrew Doctors understand it Particularly Abarbanel upon the XVIth Chapter of this Book saith That Confession was necessary to be added to every Sacrifice for sin For what is here commanded in this Case they resolve belongs to all Sin-offerings and
from them by open violence Neither rob him The same R. Levi expounds this of that which is taken from another by manifest force and doth not belong to him that takes it Praecept CCXXXVII For so the Hebrew word gazilah signifies that which a Man wrests out of the hand of another against his will 1 Chron. XI 23. The wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night till the morning For this was a kind of force and robbery to detain what was owing to him against his will In the XXIV Deut. 15. the words are Thou shalt give him his hire neither shall the Sun go down upon it From whence the Hebrew Doctors conclude there were two sorts of People that wrought for hire one were day-labourers whom Moses speaks of in this Verse another labourers by night of whom he speaks in Deuteronomy Neither of which were to stay for their Wages beyond the time appointed but the one were to have it before the Sun-set the other before Morning for it was due as soon as the day or the night was done So the Misna The Day-labourer requires his wages all night and the night Labourer all day See the fore-named R. Levi Praecept CCXXXVIII who gives this reason for it That the merciful God would have his Creatures subsist which poor Labourers cannot do if they want their wages to buy them Victuals Upon which account the detaining of their Wages is said to be a crying sin in that XXIV Deut. 14. and in St. James V. 4. Ver. 14. Verse 14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf No Israelite whether Man or Woman was to be cursed though he could not hear the Curse and so was insensible of the Injury as R. Levi explains it Praecept CCXXXIX For there was the addition of barbarous baseness in it to curse or revile a Person who was not capable to answer for himself nor do himself right and the Case of the Sick and the Infirm or the Absent was the same with the Deaf As for others who were not Deaf it was forbidden to curse them saith Maimonides because it provoked to Anger and Rage which stirred Men up to take Revenge Nor put a stumbling block before the blind This is as inhuman as the former proceeding from so great Malice that the Hebrew Doctors seem to think Men incapable of it And therefore expound it of giving ill Counsel to simple People and advising them to their Damage So R. Levi Praecept CCXL which is no less contrary to Nature then laying a stumbling-block in the way of those that cannot see to avoid it and a far greater sin because it abused their Minds and might tend to the hurt of their Souls But shalt fear thy God Believing he sees and hears and will avenge the Cause of those who cannot right themselves because they know not who injured them If any Man was convicted of either of these Crimes he was beaten I am the LORD And am therefore to be feared and obeyed Ver. 15. Verse 15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment The Jews take this to be an Admonition to their Judges that they should have an equal regard to the Plaintiff and Defendant and not prefer the one before the other Whence these words are thus explained in Siphra Thou shalt judge thy neighbours justly not letting one party stand and bidding the other sit nor suffering one to speak as much as he pleaseth and bidding the other be short See Selden de Synedr Lib. II. cap. 13. n. 10. But none hath explained this so largely as Maimonides in the whole XXI Chapter of Sanhedrim where he in general defines the just Administration of Justice to consist in an equal respect to both Parties in the Suit so that one of them have not the liberty to say what he will and the other be cut short And then descends to many particulars wherein equal respect to both Parties is to be observed some of which it will be fit to mention because they illustrate the words of St James in the second Chapter of his Epistle v. 2 3 4. If two Parties appear in a Cause one of which is clothed in precious Garments the other is ragged or in a poor Habit let it be said to him that is the more honourable Either do you bestow upon your Adversary as good Apparel as you have on your self or else put on such as he wears that you may be both alike and then appear before the Court of Judgment By no means let the one sit and the other stand but let them both be commanded to stand or if it please the Judges to give them both leave to sit let not one of them sit in a high place the other in a low but both on the same Bench one by the side of the other See R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CCXVII who observes that Mankind are preserved by righteous Judgment and therefore if a Judge was found to have given an unjust Sentance he was condemned to make Restitution to him whose Cause he had perverted Praecept CCXLI. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor See XXIII Exod. 3. Nor honour the person of the mighty This R. Levi explains Praecept CCXLII. as he did the first Clause The Judge shall not bid the great man sit down while the meaner stands but both shall stand before the Judge as if they were in the Presence of the Divine Majesty who standeth in the midst of the Judges LXXXII Psal 1. If by the favour of the Judges both were permitted to sit yet when Sentence came to be pronounced both rose up and stood according to XVIII Exod. 13. But in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour The observation of Maimonides seems to be too nice and curious who from this place gathers that though the lowest Court of Judgment ordinarily consisted of no less than three Judges yet by the Law one of them might sit alone as Judge in Matters not Capital because it is said here in the singular Number In righteousness shalt thou judge thy Neighbour For at the same time he acknowledges their wise Men require that he should take some Assessors to him when they say Do not judge by thy self alone for there is no sole Judge but one only viz. God See Selden Lib. II. de Synedr cap. 14. n. 2. and Guil. Schickardi Mishpal Hamelek cap. 4. Theorem XIV Ver. 16. Verse 16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people The Vulgar Latin takes the Hebrew word Rachil to signifie one that goes about with Calumnies But it may simply signifie as we translate it a Tale-bearer whom Aben-Ezra compares to a Merchant or Pedler as the Hebrew word imports who buys of one what he sells to another and goes about the Country as a Tale-bearer doth from House to House carrying to one what he hath heard at another saying Such a one hath said so and so of you whereby Peace and Concord is destroyed