Restitution and Priestly Stewardship of the Offerings

The instructions contained in these two chapters were made known to “ Aaron and his sons ” (Lev 6:9, Lev 6:20, Lev 6:25), i. e. , to the priests, and relate to the duties and rights which 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.

Lev 6:1-7 (Hebrew_Bible_5:14-6:7)

The instructions contained in these two chapters were made known to “ Aaron and his sons ” (Lev 6:9, Lev 6:20, Lev 6:25), i. e. , to the priests, and relate to the duties and rights which 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.

Lev 6:1-7 (Hebrew_Bible_5:14-6:7)

The instructions contained in these two chapters were made known to “ Aaron and his sons ” (Lev 6:9, Lev 6:20, Lev 6:25), i. e. , to the priests, and relate to the duties and rights which 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.

Lev 6:1-7 (Hebrew_Bible_5:14-6:7)

The instructions contained in these two chapters were made known to “ Aaron and his sons ” (Lev 6:9, Lev 6:20, Lev 6:25), i. e. , to the priests, and relate to the duties and rights which 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.

Lev 6:1-7 (Hebrew_Bible_5:14-6:7)

The instructions contained in these two chapters were made known to “ Aaron and his sons ” (Lev 6:9, Lev 6:20, Lev 6:25), i. e. , to the priests, and relate to the duties and rights which 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.

Lev 6:1-7 (Hebrew_Bible_5:14-6:7)

The instructions contained in these two chapters were made known to “ Aaron and his sons ” (Lev 6:9, Lev 6:20, Lev 6:25), i. e. , to the priests, and relate to the duties and rights which 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.

Lev 6:1-7 (Hebrew_Bible_5:14-6:7)

The instructions contained in these two chapters were made known to “ Aaron and his sons ” (Lev 6:9, Lev 6:20, Lev 6:25), i. e. , to the priests, and relate to the duties and rights which 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.

Lev 6:1-7 (Hebrew_Bible_5:14-6:7)

Lev 6:8 (Hebrew_Bible_vv_1-6). The Law of the Burnt-Offering commences the series, and special reference is made to the daily burnt-offering (Exo 29:38-42). “ It, the burnt-offering, shall (burn) upon the hearth upon the altar the whole night till the morning, and the fire of the altar be kept burning with it . ” The verb תּוּקד is wanting in the first clause, and only introduced in the second; but it belongs to the first clause as well.

The pronoun הוא 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 (Exo 29:38-39; Num 33:3-4).

Lev 6:10-11 In the morning of every day the priest was to put on his linen dress (see Exo 28:42) 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 (אכל is construed with a double accusative, to consume the sacrifice to ashes), and pour them down beside the altar (see Lev 1:16).

The ו in מדּו is not to be regarded as the old form of the connecting vowel, as in Gen 1:24 ( Ewald , §211 b ; see Ges. §90, 3 b ), but as the suffix, as in 2Sa 20:8, 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 ; Ewald , 291 b ). He was then to take off his official dress, and having put on 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 the altar in his official dress; but he could not go out of the camp with this.

Lev 6:10-11 In the morning of every day the priest was to put on his linen dress (see Exo 28:42) 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 (אכל is construed with a double accusative, to consume the sacrifice to ashes), and pour them down beside the altar (see Lev 1:16).

The ו in מדּו is not to be regarded as the old form of the connecting vowel, as in Gen 1:24 ( Ewald , §211 b ; see Ges. §90, 3 b ), but as the suffix, as in 2Sa 20:8, 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 ; Ewald , 291 b ). He was then to take off his official dress, and having put on 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 the altar in his official dress; but he could not go out of the camp with this.

Lev 6:12 The fire of the altar was also to be kept burning “ with it ” (בּו, viz., the burnt-offering) the whole day through without going out. 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 were not prescribed for every day.

Lev 6:13 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 Lev 9:24); 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 Rosenmüller and Knobel ad h. l.)

Lev 6:14-18 The Law of the Meat-Offering. - The regulations in Lev 6:14, Lev 6:15, are merely a repetition of Lev 2:2 and Lev 2:3; but in Lev 6:16-18 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, i. e. , to bake it without leaven, and to eat it in a holy place, viz.

, in the court of the tabernacle. תּאכל מצות in Lev 6:16 is explained by “ it shall not be baken with leaven ” in Lev 6:17. It was the priests’ share of the firings of Jehovah (see Lev 1:9), and as such it was most holy (see Lev 2:3), like the sin-offering and trespass-offering (Lev 6:25, Lev 6:26; Lev 7:6), 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 Lev 3:17). Every one that touches them (the most holy offerings) becomes holy . ” יקדּשׁ 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 . , Knobel , and others). In this provision, which was equally applicable to the sin-offering (Lev 6:27), to the altar of the burnt-offering (Exo 29:37), and to the most holy vessels of the tabernacle (Exo 30:29), the word is not to be interpreted by Num 17:2-3, or Deu 22:9, or by the expression “shall be holy” in Lev 27:10, Lev 27:21, and Num 18:10, but by Isa 65:5, “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 (Lev 21:1-8), 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.

Lev 6:14-18 The Law of the Meat-Offering. - The regulations in Lev 6:14, Lev 6:15, are merely a repetition of Lev 2:2 and Lev 2:3; but in Lev 6:16-18 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, i. e. , to bake it without leaven, and to eat it in a holy place, viz.

, in the court of the tabernacle. תּאכל מצות in Lev 6:16 is explained by “ it shall not be baken with leaven ” in Lev 6:17. It was the priests’ share of the firings of Jehovah (see Lev 1:9), and as such it was most holy (see Lev 2:3), like the sin-offering and trespass-offering (Lev 6:25, Lev 6:26; Lev 7:6), 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 Lev 3:17). Every one that touches them (the most holy offerings) becomes holy . ” יקדּשׁ 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 . , Knobel , and others). In this provision, which was equally applicable to the sin-offering (Lev 6:27), to the altar of the burnt-offering (Exo 29:37), and to the most holy vessels of the tabernacle (Exo 30:29), the word is not to be interpreted by Num 17:2-3, or Deu 22:9, or by the expression “shall be holy” in Lev 27:10, Lev 27:21, and Num 18:10, but by Isa 65:5, “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 (Lev 21:1-8), 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.

Lev 6:14-18 The Law of the Meat-Offering. - The regulations in Lev 6:14, Lev 6:15, are merely a repetition of Lev 2:2 and Lev 2:3; but in Lev 6:16-18 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, i. e. , to bake it without leaven, and to eat it in a holy place, viz.

, in the court of the tabernacle. תּאכל מצות in Lev 6:16 is explained by “ it shall not be baken with leaven ” in Lev 6:17. It was the priests’ share of the firings of Jehovah (see Lev 1:9), and as such it was most holy (see Lev 2:3), like the sin-offering and trespass-offering (Lev 6:25, Lev 6:26; Lev 7:6), 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 Lev 3:17). Every one that touches them (the most holy offerings) becomes holy . ” יקדּשׁ 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 . , Knobel , and others). In this provision, which was equally applicable to the sin-offering (Lev 6:27), to the altar of the burnt-offering (Exo 29:37), and to the most holy vessels of the tabernacle (Exo 30:29), the word is not to be interpreted by Num 17:2-3, or Deu 22:9, or by the expression “shall be holy” in Lev 27:10, Lev 27:21, and Num 18:10, but by Isa 65:5, “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 (Lev 21:1-8), 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.

Lev 6:14-18 The Law of the Meat-Offering. - The regulations in Lev 6:14, Lev 6:15, are merely a repetition of Lev 2:2 and Lev 2:3; but in Lev 6:16-18 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, i. e. , to bake it without leaven, and to eat it in a holy place, viz.

, in the court of the tabernacle. תּאכל מצות in Lev 6:16 is explained by “ it shall not be baken with leaven ” in Lev 6:17. It was the priests’ share of the firings of Jehovah (see Lev 1:9), and as such it was most holy (see Lev 2:3), like the sin-offering and trespass-offering (Lev 6:25, Lev 6:26; Lev 7:6), 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 Lev 3:17). Every one that touches them (the most holy offerings) becomes holy . ” יקדּשׁ 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 . , Knobel , and others). In this provision, which was equally applicable to the sin-offering (Lev 6:27), to the altar of the burnt-offering (Exo 29:37), and to the most holy vessels of the tabernacle (Exo 30:29), the word is not to be interpreted by Num 17:2-3, or Deu 22:9, or by the expression “shall be holy” in Lev 27:10, Lev 27:21, and Num 18:10, but by Isa 65:5, “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 (Lev 21:1-8), 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.

Lev 6:14-18 The Law of the Meat-Offering. - The regulations in Lev 6:14, Lev 6:15, are merely a repetition of Lev 2:2 and Lev 2:3; but in Lev 6:16-18 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, i. e. , to bake it without leaven, and to eat it in a holy place, viz.

, in the court of the tabernacle. תּאכל מצות in Lev 6:16 is explained by “ it shall not be baken with leaven ” in Lev 6:17. It was the priests’ share of the firings of Jehovah (see Lev 1:9), and as such it was most holy (see Lev 2:3), like the sin-offering and trespass-offering (Lev 6:25, Lev 6:26; Lev 7:6), 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 Lev 3:17). Every one that touches them (the most holy offerings) becomes holy . ” יקדּשׁ 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 . , Knobel , and others). In this provision, which was equally applicable to the sin-offering (Lev 6:27), to the altar of the burnt-offering (Exo 29:37), and to the most holy vessels of the tabernacle (Exo 30:29), the word is not to be interpreted by Num 17:2-3, or Deu 22:9, or by the expression “shall be holy” in Lev 27:10, Lev 27:21, and Num 18:10, but by Isa 65:5, “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 (Lev 21:1-8), 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.

Lev 6:19-23 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 ” (המּשׁח, construed as a passive with the accusative as in Gen 4:18), Aaron and his sons were to offer a corban as “ a perpetual meat-offering ” ( minchah , in the absolute instead of the construct state: cf.

Exo 29:42; Num 28:6; 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 stead, ” that is to say, by every high priest at the time of his consecration. “ In the day of his anointing: ” when the anointing was finished, the seven were designated as “the day ,” like the seven days of creation in Gen 2:4.

This minchah was not offered during the seven days of the anointing itself, but after the consecration was finished, i. e. , in all probability, as the Jewish tradition assumes, at the beginning of the eighth day, when the high priest entered upon his office, viz. , along with the daily morning sacrifices (Exo 29:38-39), and before the offering described in Lev 9.

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 Wis. Wis. (45:14, where we cannot suppose the daily burnt-offering to be intended) and also of Josephus ( Ant. 3:10, 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 פּתּים מנחת ני תּפי (“ broken pieces of a minchah of crumbs ”), i.

e. , in broken pieces, like a minchah composed of crumbs. מרבּכת (Lev 6:14 and 1Ch 23:29) is no doubt synonymous with מרבּכת סלת, and to be understood as denoting fine flour sufficiently burned or roasted in oil; the meaning mixed or mingled does not harmonise with Lev 7:12, where the mixing or kneading with oil is expressed by בּשּׁמן בּלוּלת. The hapax legomenon תּפיני signifies either broken or baked, according as we suppose the word to be derived from the Arabic 'afana diminuit, or, as Gesenius and the Rabbins do, from אפה to bake, a point which can hardly be decided with certainty.

This minchah , 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 (Lev 2:3, Lev 2:10). Origen observes in his homil . iv. in Levit. : In caeteris quidem praeceptis pontifex in offerendis sacrificiis populo praebet officium, in hoc vero mandato quae 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 forth the fruits of sanctification.

Lev 6:19-23 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 ” (המּשׁח, construed as a passive with the accusative as in Gen 4:18), Aaron and his sons were to offer a corban as “ a perpetual meat-offering ” ( minchah , in the absolute instead of the construct state: cf.

Exo 29:42; Num 28:6; 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 stead, ” that is to say, by every high priest at the time of his consecration. “ In the day of his anointing: ” when the anointing was finished, the seven were designated as “the day ,” like the seven days of creation in Gen 2:4.

This minchah was not offered during the seven days of the anointing itself, but after the consecration was finished, i. e. , in all probability, as the Jewish tradition assumes, at the beginning of the eighth day, when the high priest entered upon his office, viz. , along with the daily morning sacrifices (Exo 29:38-39), and before the offering described in Lev 9.

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 Wis. Wis. (45:14, where we cannot suppose the daily burnt-offering to be intended) and also of Josephus ( Ant. 3:10, 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 פּתּים מנחת ני תּפי (“ broken pieces of a minchah of crumbs ”), i.

e. , in broken pieces, like a minchah composed of crumbs. מרבּכת (Lev 6:14 and 1Ch 23:29) is no doubt synonymous with מרבּכת סלת, and to be understood as denoting fine flour sufficiently burned or roasted in oil; the meaning mixed or mingled does not harmonise with Lev 7:12, where the mixing or kneading with oil is expressed by בּשּׁמן בּלוּלת. The hapax legomenon תּפיני signifies either broken or baked, according as we suppose the word to be derived from the Arabic 'afana diminuit, or, as Gesenius and the Rabbins do, from אפה to bake, a point which can hardly be decided with certainty.

This minchah , 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 (Lev 2:3, Lev 2:10). Origen observes in his homil . iv. in Levit. : In caeteris quidem praeceptis pontifex in offerendis sacrificiis populo praebet officium, in hoc vero mandato quae 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 forth the fruits of sanctification.

Lev 6:19-23 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 ” (המּשׁח, construed as a passive with the accusative as in Gen 4:18), Aaron and his sons were to offer a corban as “ a perpetual meat-offering ” ( minchah , in the absolute instead of the construct state: cf.

Exo 29:42; Num 28:6; 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 stead, ” that is to say, by every high priest at the time of his consecration. “ In the day of his anointing: ” when the anointing was finished, the seven were designated as “the day ,” like the seven days of creation in Gen 2:4.

This minchah was not offered during the seven days of the anointing itself, but after the consecration was finished, i. e. , in all probability, as the Jewish tradition assumes, at the beginning of the eighth day, when the high priest entered upon his office, viz. , along with the daily morning sacrifices (Exo 29:38-39), and before the offering described in Lev 9.

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 Wis. Wis. (45:14, where we cannot suppose the daily burnt-offering to be intended) and also of Josephus ( Ant. 3:10, 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 פּתּים מנחת ני תּפי (“ broken pieces of a minchah of crumbs ”), i.

e. , in broken pieces, like a minchah composed of crumbs. מרבּכת (Lev 6:14 and 1Ch 23:29) is no doubt synonymous with מרבּכת סלת, and to be understood as denoting fine flour sufficiently burned or roasted in oil; the meaning mixed or mingled does not harmonise with Lev 7:12, where the mixing or kneading with oil is expressed by בּשּׁמן בּלוּלת. The hapax legomenon תּפיני signifies either broken or baked, according as we suppose the word to be derived from the Arabic 'afana diminuit, or, as Gesenius and the Rabbins do, from אפה to bake, a point which can hardly be decided with certainty.

This minchah , 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 (Lev 2:3, Lev 2:10). Origen observes in his homil . iv. in Levit. : In caeteris quidem praeceptis pontifex in offerendis sacrificiis populo praebet officium, in hoc vero mandato quae 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 forth the fruits of sanctification.

Lev 6:19-23 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 ” (המּשׁח, construed as a passive with the accusative as in Gen 4:18), Aaron and his sons were to offer a corban as “ a perpetual meat-offering ” ( minchah , in the absolute instead of the construct state: cf.

Exo 29:42; Num 28:6; 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 stead, ” that is to say, by every high priest at the time of his consecration. “ In the day of his anointing: ” when the anointing was finished, the seven were designated as “the day ,” like the seven days of creation in Gen 2:4.

This minchah was not offered during the seven days of the anointing itself, but after the consecration was finished, i. e. , in all probability, as the Jewish tradition assumes, at the beginning of the eighth day, when the high priest entered upon his office, viz. , along with the daily morning sacrifices (Exo 29:38-39), and before the offering described in Lev 9.

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 Wis. Wis. (45:14, where we cannot suppose the daily burnt-offering to be intended) and also of Josephus ( Ant. 3:10, 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 פּתּים מנחת ני תּפי (“ broken pieces of a minchah of crumbs ”), i.

e. , in broken pieces, like a minchah composed of crumbs. מרבּכת (Lev 6:14 and 1Ch 23:29) is no doubt synonymous with מרבּכת סלת, and to be understood as denoting fine flour sufficiently burned or roasted in oil; the meaning mixed or mingled does not harmonise with Lev 7:12, where the mixing or kneading with oil is expressed by בּשּׁמן בּלוּלת. The hapax legomenon תּפיני signifies either broken or baked, according as we suppose the word to be derived from the Arabic 'afana diminuit, or, as Gesenius and the Rabbins do, from אפה to bake, a point which can hardly be decided with certainty.

This minchah , 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 (Lev 2:3, Lev 2:10). Origen observes in his homil . iv. in Levit. : In caeteris quidem praeceptis pontifex in offerendis sacrificiis populo praebet officium, in hoc vero mandato quae 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 forth the fruits of sanctification.

Lev 6:19-23 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 ” (המּשׁח, construed as a passive with the accusative as in Gen 4:18), Aaron and his sons were to offer a corban as “ a perpetual meat-offering ” ( minchah , in the absolute instead of the construct state: cf.

Exo 29:42; Num 28:6; 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 stead, ” that is to say, by every high priest at the time of his consecration. “ In the day of his anointing: ” when the anointing was finished, the seven were designated as “the day ,” like the seven days of creation in Gen 2:4.

This minchah was not offered during the seven days of the anointing itself, but after the consecration was finished, i. e. , in all probability, as the Jewish tradition assumes, at the beginning of the eighth day, when the high priest entered upon his office, viz. , along with the daily morning sacrifices (Exo 29:38-39), and before the offering described in Lev 9.

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 Wis. Wis. (45:14, where we cannot suppose the daily burnt-offering to be intended) and also of Josephus ( Ant. 3:10, 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 פּתּים מנחת ני תּפי (“ broken pieces of a minchah of crumbs ”), i.

e. , in broken pieces, like a minchah composed of crumbs. מרבּכת (Lev 6:14 and 1Ch 23:29) is no doubt synonymous with מרבּכת סלת, and to be understood as denoting fine flour sufficiently burned or roasted in oil; the meaning mixed or mingled does not harmonise with Lev 7:12, where the mixing or kneading with oil is expressed by בּשּׁמן בּלוּלת. The hapax legomenon תּפיני signifies either broken or baked, according as we suppose the word to be derived from the Arabic 'afana diminuit, or, as Gesenius and the Rabbins do, from אפה to bake, a point which can hardly be decided with certainty.

This minchah , 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 (Lev 2:3, Lev 2:10). Origen observes in his homil . iv. in Levit. : In caeteris quidem praeceptis pontifex in offerendis sacrificiis populo praebet officium, in hoc vero mandato quae 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 forth the fruits of sanctification.

Lev 6:24-27 The Law of the Sin-Offering, which is introduced with a new introductory formula on account of the interpolation of Lev 6:19-23, gives more precise instructions, though chiefly with regard to the sin-offerings of the laity, first as to the place of slaughtering, as in Lev 4:24, 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 Lev 6:16).

Whoever touched it became holy (see at Lev 6:18); 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 shalt wash” in Lev 6:20 are addressed to the priest.

Lev 6:24-27 The Law of the Sin-Offering, which is introduced with a new introductory formula on account of the interpolation of Lev 6:19-23, gives more precise instructions, though chiefly with regard to the sin-offerings of the laity, first as to the place of slaughtering, as in Lev 4:24, 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 Lev 6:16).

Whoever touched it became holy (see at Lev 6:18); 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 shalt wash” in Lev 6:20 are addressed to the priest.

Lev 6:24-27 The Law of the Sin-Offering, which is introduced with a new introductory formula on account of the interpolation of Lev 6:19-23, gives more precise instructions, though chiefly with regard to the sin-offerings of the laity, first as to the place of slaughtering, as in Lev 4:24, 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 Lev 6:16).

Whoever touched it became holy (see at Lev 6:18); 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 shalt wash” in Lev 6:20 are addressed to the priest.

Lev 6:24-27 The Law of the Sin-Offering, which is introduced with a new introductory formula on account of the interpolation of Lev 6:19-23, gives more precise instructions, though chiefly with regard to the sin-offerings of the laity, first as to the place of slaughtering, as in Lev 4:24, 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 Lev 6:16).

Whoever touched it became holy (see at Lev 6:18); 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 shalt wash” in Lev 6:20 are addressed to the priest.

Lev 6:28 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 (מרק Pual ) and overflowed with water, i. e. , thoroughly rinsed out, if it were 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 Lev 11:33, Lev 11:35).

Lev 6:29-30 The flesh of the sin-offering was to be eaten after it had been boiled, like the meat-offering (Lev 6:16 and Lev 6:18), by the males among the priests alone. But this only applied to the sin-offerings the laity (Lev 4:22-5:13). The flesh of the sin-offerings for the high priest and the whole congregation (Lev 4:1-21), the 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 (Lev 4:12, Lev 4:21). - On the signification of this act of eating the flesh of the sin-offering, see at Lev 10:17.