Verse 2

TOUCHING ANY THING UNCLEAN. (Lev 5:2-3) if a soul touch any unclean thing--A person who, unknown to himself at the time, came in contact with any thing unclean, and either neglected the requisite ceremonies of purification or engaged in the services of religion while under the taint of ceremonial defilement, might be afterwards convinced that he had committed an offense.

Verse 4

FOR SWEARING. (Lev 5:4-19) if a soul swear--a rash oath, without duly considering the nature and consequences of the oath, perhaps inconsiderately binding himself to do anything wrong, or neglecting to perform a vow to do something good. In all such cases a person might have transgressed one of the divine commandments unwittingly, and have been afterwards brought to a sense of his delinquency.

Verse 5

it shall be, when he shall be guilty . . . that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing--make a voluntary acknowledgment of his sin from the impulse of his own conscience, and before it come to the knowledge of the world. A previous discovery might have subjected him to some degree of punishment from which his spontaneous confession released him, but still he was considered guilty of trespass, to expiate which he was obliged by the ceremonial law to go through certain observances.

Verse 6

he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord for his sins which he hath sinned--A trespass offering differed from a sin offering in the following respects: that it was appointed for persons who had either done evil unwittingly, or were in doubt as to their own criminality; or felt themselves in such a special situation as required sacrifices of that kind [BROWN]. The trespass offering appointed in such cases was a female lamb or kid; if unable to make such an offering, he might bring a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons--the one to be offered for a sin offering, the other for a burnt offering; or if even that was beyond his ability, the law would be satisfied with the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense.

Verse 15

sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord, &c.--This is a case of sacrilege committed ignorantly, either in not paying the full due of tithes, first-fruits, and similar tribute in eating of meats, which belonged to the priests alone--or he was required, along with the restitution in money, the amount of which was to be determined by the priest, to offer a ram for a trespass offering, as soon as he came to the knowledge of his involuntary fraud.

Verse 17

if a soul sin . . . though he wist it not, yet is he guilty--This also refers to holy things, and it differs from the preceding in being one of the doubtful cases,--that is, where conscience suspects, though the understanding be in doubt whether criminality or sin has been committed. The Jewish rabbis give, as an example, the case of a person who, knowing that "the fat of the inwards" is not to be eaten, religiously abstained from the use of it; but should a dish happen to have been at table in which he had reason to suspect some portion of that meat was intermingled, and he had, inadvertently, partaken of that unlawful viand, he was bound to bring a ram as a trespass offering [Lev 5:16]. These provisions were all designed to impress the conscience with the sense of responsibility to God and keep alive on the hearts of the people a salutary fear of doing any secret wrong. Next: Leviticus Chapter 6

Verse 1

And if a soul sin,.... The soul is put for the person, and is particularly mentioned, as Ben Melech says, because possessed of will and desire: and hear the voice of swearing; or cursing, or adjuration; not of profane swearing, and taking the name of God in vain, but either of false swearing, or perjury, as when a man hears another swear to a thing which he knows is false; or else of adjuration, either the voice of a magistrate or of a neighbour adjuring another, calling upon him with an oath to bear testimony in such a case; this is what the Jews (r) call the oath of testimony or witness, and which they say (s) is binding in whatsoever language it is heard: and is a witness; is able to bear witness to the thing he is adjured about: whether he hath seen or known of it; what he has seen with his eyes, or knows by any means: of such a case, the Jews observe (t), that there may be seeing without knowing, or knowing without seeing, and in either case a man ought to bear witness: if he do not utter it; tell the truth, declare what he has seen or known: then he shall bear his iniquity; he shall be charged with sin, and be obliged to acknowledge his offence, and bring a trespass offering for it: it is said (u), that the witnesses are not guilty of the oath of the testimony, but in these ten cases; if they are required; if the testimony is concerning goods; if the goods are movable; if he that requires binds himself to pay for their testimony only, in case they bear witness; if they refuse after required; if they refuse in the sanhedrim; if the adjuration or oath is made there by the name of God, or his titles; if knowledge of the testimony goes before the oath; if he particularizes his witnesses in the time of the oath, or at the time of the requirement; and if the oath is in a language they understood. (r) Misn. Sotah, c. 7. 1. (s) Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. T. Bab. Sotah, fol. 33. 1. (t) T. Bab. Shebuot, fol. 33. 2. & 34. 1. (u) Maimon. Hilchot, Shebuot, c. 9. sect. 3.

Verse 2

Or if a soul touch any unclean thing,.... Meaning an Israelite, for only such were bound by this law, which pronounced a person unclean that touched anything that was so in a ceremonial sense; this is the general, including whatsoever by the law was unclean; the particulars follow: whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, as the camel, the coney, the hare, and the swine, Lev 11:2. or a carcass of unclean cattle; as the horse, and the ass, which were unclean for food, and their dead carcasses not to be touched, Lev 11:26. or the carcass of unclean creeping things: such as are mentioned in Lev 11:29. and if it be hidden from him; that he has touched them; or the uncleanness contracted by touching, he having inadvertently done it; or being ignorant of the law concerning such uncleanness: he also shall be unclean; in a ceremonial sense, by thus touching them: and guilty; of a breach of the command which forbids the touching of them: this is by way of prolepsis or anticipation; for as yet the law concerning unclean beasts, and creeping things, and pollution by touching them, was not given: Jarchi and Gersom interpret this guilt, of eating of holy things, and going into the sanctuary when thus defiled: in the Jewish Misnah (w) it is said, the word "hidden" is twice used, to show that he is guilty, for the ignorance of uncleanness, and for the ignorance of the sanctuary. (w) Misn. Shebuot, c. 2. sect. 5.

Verse 3

Or if he touch the uncleanness of man,.... The dead body of a man, or the bone of a dead body, or a grave, or any profluvious or menstruous person: whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal: not morally, but ceremonially: and it be hid from him; he is not sensible that he has touched any thing ceremonially unclean: when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty: acknowledge his guilt, and offer a sacrifice for it, as after directed.

Verse 4

Or if a soul swear,.... A rash or vain oath: pronouncing with his lips; not in his heart, as Jarchi notes; not saying within himself that he would do this, or that, or the other thing, but expressing his oath plainly and distinctly, with an audible voice: to do good, or to do evil; which was either impossible or unlawful for him to do; whether the good or evil he swears to do is to himself or to another; whether he swears to do good to himself, and evil to another, or, good to another, and evil to himself, see Psa 15:4. The Targum of Jonathan paraphrases it,"whatsoever a man expresses, whether of anything present or future;''as if he swears he has done such and such a thing, whether good or evil; or that he will do it, be it what it will, and it is not in the power of his hands to do it, or, if he did it, it would be doing a wrong thing: whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; he has forgot that he ever swore such an oath: and when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these; when he is told of it, and it is made clearly to appear to him, that he did at such a time, and in such a place, deliver out a rash oath concerning this, or the other thing, then he shall be chargeable with guilt in one of these; either in rashly swearing to do good when it was not in his power, or to do evil, which would have been unlawful. The Targum of Jonathan is,"if he knows that he has falsified, and repents not, he is guilty.''

Verse 5

And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things,.... Before expressed in the preceding verses; the Targum of Jonathan is,"in one of the four things,''which Ben Gersom particularly mentions in the oath of witness, or the pollution of the sanctuary, or the pollution of its holy things, or a vain oath: that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing; not make confession of sin in general, but of that particular sin he is guilty of; and this he was to do before he brought his offering, or at least at the time of his bringing it; for without confession his offering would be of no avail; and which he made, as Ben Gersom says, by laying his hand on the head of the offering, thereby signifying and declaring his guilt, and that he deserved to die as the creature would about to be sacrificed for him; or he might make a verbal confession and acknowledgment of his offence. Fagius, from the Jewish writers, has given us the form of it, which was this;"I beseech thee, O Lord, I have sinned, I have done wickedly, I have transgressed before thee, so and so have I done; and, lo, I repent, and am ashamed of what I have done, and I will never do the same again.''Though perhaps this form may be of too modern a date, yet doubtless somewhat like this was pronounced; and they make confession of sin necessary to all sacrifices, and say (x), atonement is not made by them without repentance and confession. (x) Maimon. Hilchot Teshubah, c. 1. sect. 1.

Verse 6

And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, for the sin which he hath sinned,.... To make atonement for it; this was typical of the sacrifice of Christ, whose soul was made an offering for sin, "Asham" a trespass offering, Isa 53:10 where the same word is used as here: a female from the flock, a lamb, or kid of the goats, for a sin offering; it is generally thought there was a difference between a trespass offering and a sin offering; but it is not easy to say wherein the difference lies; and what has been observed by learned men is not very satisfactory: and certain it is, that the same offering is here called both a trespass offering and a sin offering; and such as were men of substance, and capable of it, were to bring a female lamb or kid; it being for sins of ignorance, a sacrifice of a less value was admitted; yet it must be a lamb, typical of Christ the Lamb of God; and atonement cannot be made, even for sins of ignorance, but by the blood and sacrifice of Christ: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin; that is, by offering his sacrifice for him, which was a type of the atonement made by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without spot and blemish.

Verse 7

And if he be not able to bring a lamb,.... He is not possessed of a lamb, nor able to purchase one: then he shall bring for his trespass which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the Lord; either the one or the other; these were common, and in great plenty in the land of Israel, as Maimonides (y) observes, which was the reason of their being ordered, since to be had cheap. The turtledoves were larger, as the Targum of Jonathan calls them, being older, and the pigeons lesser, being young; or the one were grown, and not little, and the other little, and not grown, as the Jewish writers (z) observe; and either of them were proper emblems of Christ in his purity, innocence, and meekness, by whom an atonement is made both for the rich and poor: one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; one of the turtle doves or pigeons, whichsoever were brought, was offered up as a sin offering, and the other that remained was offered up as a burnt offering; so that the poor man had two sorts of offerings out of what he brought, when the rich had but one; and may denote the completeness of his sacrifice, and the full atonement made by it. (y) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 46. (z) Maimon & Bartenora in Misn. Cholin, c. 1. sect. 5.

Verse 8

And he shall bring them unto the priest,.... Either two turtledoves, or two young pigeons: who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first; that which is chosen for it, as the Targum of Jonathan; and this choice was made, not by the priest, but by the man that brought the offering, who separated it, and said, lo, this is a sin offering, and after that said, lo, this is a burnt offering (a); the sin offering was offered first, which was to make atonement for sin, and then the burnt offering, to denote the divine acceptance of it; and so Ben Gersom observes, it was proper to offer the sin offering first, to atone for his sin, that after he (God) was appeased this way, he might receive his gift; for the burnt offering was as a gift. Jarchi compares it to an advocate, who first goes in to appease, and when he has appeased, the gift goes in after him: and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder: be it a turtledove or a young pigeon, so it was to be served; the head was not to be separated from the body, but was nipped by the nail of the priest "in" the neck, as it might be rendered (b); over against the neck, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan render it; the hinder part, or what is behind the throat, as Jarchi and Ben Molech interpret it; so that the part which was nipped was the neck; and this nip was made so large, as that the blood was let out by it, as appears from the following verse Lev 5:9, and yet the head was not divided from the body; the head hung by a piece of skin on the back part; of the manner of performing this, and the mystery of it; see Gill on Lev 1:15. (a) Ib. (Maimon & Bratenora) in Misn. Zebachim, c. 10. sect. 4. (b) Vid. Noldium, p. 611. No. 1637.

Verse 9

And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar,.... Or "wall" (c) it is asked (d),"what is the wall at which the rest of the blood is wrung out? this is the lower wall, namely, the half of the height of the altar below, under the thread (of scarlet that goes round the middle of the altar) that the rest of the blood may be squeezed at the bottom of the altar, and because of this the sin offering of the fowl is below,''that is, the sprinkling of its blood. And so Ben Gersom observes; from hence we learn, says he, that the sprinkling of the sin offering of the fowl was in the lower part of the altar; and I think this sprinkling, adds he, was not in the length, but in the breadth: and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar; the blood sprinkled was that which dropped from it when nipped by the priest; this here was squeezed out by him, and was shed at the foot of the altar; so that the altar had all the blood, and nothing but the blood of the fowl, all the rest belonged to the priest (e): this might be an emblem both of the drops of blood which fell from Christ in the garden, and of the shedding of his blood upon the cross, whereby remission of sin was obtained, and atonement made: it is a sin offering; an offering whereby sin was typically expiated and stoned. (c) , Sept. "super parietem", Pagninus, Montanus, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Drusius; "ad parietem", Tigurine version. (d) Maimon. in Misn. Zebachim, c. 6. sect. 4. (e) Misn. ib.

Verse 10

And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner,.... That is, the second turtledove or young pigeon, after the other was made a sin offering; and the manner according to which this was offered was not according to the rite or manner of the bird chosen first for a sin offering, as the Targum of Jonathan, but according to the burnt offering of the fowl in Lev 1:15 so Jarchi and Ben Gersom: and the priest shall make an atonement for him, for his sin which he had sinned, and it shall be forgiven him; upon the atonement made; and so forgiveness of sin with God proceeds upon the atonement made by the blood of Christ, Heb 9:22. God never took one step towards it, without a regard to Christ the propitiation for sin; he promised it with a view to him; there is no instance of pardon under the Old Testament but in this way, and God always has respect to Christ in pardon, it is for his sake; and this way of forgiveness best provides for the glory of the divine perfections; there can be no better way, or infinite wisdom would have used it; there could be no other way, considering the council and covenant of peace; to pardon, without atonement and satisfaction, is not consistent with the purity, justice, and veracity of God; and to observe this great truth, the phrase is afterwards frequently repeated,

Verse 11

But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons,.... Which is supposing a man to be in the poorest circumstances he can well be; and such is the grace and goodness of God, that he has provided for the atonement and forgiveness of the poorest, as well as of the rich: then he that hath sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; which is an omer, Exo 16:36 and is as much as a man can eat in one day, as Aben Ezra remarks: he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; to distinguish it from the common meat offering, which had both, Lev 3:1 and to make it as easy, and as little chargeable to the poor as possible, both oil and frankincense being things of value; and some think that these were prohibited, to show that atonement and forgiveness, and even the salvation of men, are not owing to grace in them, comparable to oil, or to their prayers, signified by frankincense, and so to any or all of their duties, but to Christ alone, and his atoning sacrifice: or these were forbidden, because emblems of joy and gladness, and therefore not so proper at a confession of sin, and humiliation for it: or rather to show how disagreeable and offensive sin was to the Lord, being contrary to grace, of which oil was an emblem, and far from being acceptable to him, which frankincense might signify; and therefore being prohibited, might denote how unacceptable, yea nauseous, sin is to him; which agrees with the reason given: for it is a sin offering, and therefore must not be honoured, as Jarchi, or must have everything removed from it that is beautiful and amiable, as Ben Gersom, such as oil and frankincense.

Verse 12

Then shall he bring it to the priest,.... The flour just as it was, not kneaded and made into a cake, as appears by what follows: and the priest shall take his handful of it; as much of the flour as he could hold in one hand: even a memorial thereof; to bring to mind his sin, and the goodness of God in admitting of an offering for it, and forgiving it upon that: and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord; in the same manner as other burnt offerings were made: it is a sin offering; or an expiatory sacrifice for sin.

Verse 13

And the priest shall make an atonement for him,.... By burning the handful of flour brought by him, as an emblem of the painful sufferings of Christ, whereby he made atonement for the sins of his people: as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these; for whatsoever sin he had committed in any of the above cases, Lev 5:1, and it shall be forgiven him; upon the foot of the atonement made; See Gill on Lev 5:10, and the remnant shall be the priest's as a meat offering; the whole tenth part of an ephah of fine flour was the priest's, excepting the handful he took and burnt, just as in the case of a common meat offering, Lev 2:3.

Verse 14

And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... Out of the tabernacle of the congregation, Lev 1:1 he continued to speak to him: saying, as follows.

Verse 15

If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord,.... In the payment of tithes, or offering first fruits as he ought, by withholding them, or any part of them, or through eating of sacred things he ought not: then shall he bring for his trespass unto the Lord; for it being a trespass in holy things, it might be properly called a trespass to or against the Lord; unless this is rather to be understood of the offering brought to the Lord for his trespass as follows: a ram without blemish out of the flocks; out of the sheep and not the goats, as Ben Gersom observes; and this being for sacrifice, or for a trespass in holy things though ignorantly done, an offering of more value is required than for sins of ignorance in other cases, Lev 5:6 a type of Christ, who for his strength may be compared to a ram, and to one without blemish, for his purity and holiness, and to a choice one, selected out of the flock, for his being chosen out from among the people: with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering; that is, either an estimation was to be taken of the damage done in the holy things, an account of which was to be brought along with the ram, and the cost paid; or else the ram brought was to be of the value of, or worth shekels of silver; and the least of many being two, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom observe, the sense is, that the ram brought for the trespass offering should be at least worth two shekels of silver; so Jarchi and Ben Gersom.

Verse 16

And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing,.... This seems to favour the sense of the word "estimation", in the preceding verse, as understood of the estimate of the damage done in the holy things, which belonged to the priests, for which recompense was to be made according as the damage was valued: and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest; besides paying the whole damage, he was to give a fifth part of the whole to the priest; which was ordered to show the evil nature of the sin of sacrilege, though done ignorantly, and to make men careful and cautious of committing it: the fifth part, according to the Jewish writers (f), is the fourth part of that of which a man eats, ("viz." of the holy things,) which is the fifth of the whole; thus, if he eats the value of a penny, he pays the penny and the fourth part of one, and so it is in all the fifths mentioned in the law; or, as Ben Gersom on the place expresses it, if he has had profit by the holy things to the value of four shekels, he pays five shekels; for the fifth of the shekels they add the fifth part to the four shekels; in this he observes, all are alike, the priest, the anointed, the prince, and a private person, for the law makes no difference between them in this: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering; by offering it up for him: and it shall be forgiven him; after he has paid the whole damage, and a fifth part besides, and offered the trespass offering for atonement; See Gill on Lev 5:10. (f) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Trumot, c. 6. 1.

Verse 17

And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord,.... Respecting holy things: though he wist it not; or did not know that he had transgressed a negative command: yet he is guilty, and shall bear the iniquity; be chargeable with guilt, and is liable to punishment, and must make an atonement and satisfaction for it; see Luk 12:48.

Verse 18

And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock,.... See Gill on Lev 5:15. with thy estimation for a trespass offering to the priest; along with the offering was to be brought an estimate of whatsoever damage had been done through the breach of any of the commands of God, where damage could take place, that so recompense be made as before directed; or else the ram brought was to be valued, and examined whether it was worth two shekels of silver, as before explained; see Gill on Lev 5:15 but no fifth was required as in the former cases: and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred, and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him; See Gill on Lev 5:10 this is what the Jews call "Asham Talui", doubtful trespass offering.

Verse 19

It is a trespass offering,.... An offering for a trespass committed: he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord; though committed ignorantly, and therefore an offering must be brought; for no sin of any kind must be overlooked, passed by, or forgiven, without a sacrifice, or without atonement made by sacrifice: or, "he shall offer a trespass offering to the Lord", or before the Lord, as Onkelos; or before the Word of the Lord, as Jonathan; and Maimonides out of Siphri (g) observes, that whereas it is said, a trespass or trespass offering to the Lord, it was not lawful for the priests to eat of it. (g) Maimon. in Misn. Temurah, c. 7. sect. 6. Next: Leviticus Chapter 6

Verse 1

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 Lev 4:27.; 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 (Lev 5:1), 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. אלה does not mean a curse in general, but an oath, as an imprecation upon one's self (= the "oath of cursing" in Num 5:21); 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 appear 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.). עון נשׁא, to bear the offence or sin, i.e., to take away and endure its consequences (see Gen 4:13), whether they consisted in chastisements and judgments, by which God punished the sin (Lev 7:18; Lev 17:16; Lev 19:17), such as diseases or distress (Num 5:31; Num 14:33-34), childlessness (Lev 20:20), death (Lev 22:9), or extermination (Lev 19:8; Lev 20:17; Lev 9:13), or in punishment inflicted by men (Lev 24:15), or whether they could be expiated by sin-offerings (as in this passage and Lev 5:17) and other kinds of atonement. In this sense חמא נשׂא is also sometimes used (see at Lev 19:17). Lev 5:2-3 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. Lev 5:4 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 24:13; Isa 41:23), - "with regard to all that he speaks idly with 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 with regard to one of the things which he had thoughtlessly sworn. Lev 5:5-6 If any one therefore (the three cases enumerated are comprehended under the one expression כי והיה, for the purpose of introducing the apodosis) had contracted guilt with reference to one of these (the things named in Lev 5:1-4), 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. אשׁם (Lev 5:6) does not mean either guilt-offering or debitum (Knobel), but culpa, delictum, reatus, as in Lev 5:7 : "as his guilt," i.e., for the expiation of his guilt, which he had brought upon himself. Lev 5:7-10 "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 sin-offering, 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 sin-offering; for in the burnt-offering he let all the blood flow out against the wall of the altar (Lev 1:15). 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 whether it fell to the priest, as the Mishnah 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 was to be offered as a burnt-offering, and, according to Lev 5:10, 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, כּמּשׂפּט, according to the right laid down in Lev 1:14., 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. (Note: 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.) Lev 5:11-13 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. ידו תּשּׂיג for ידו תּגּיע (Lev 5:7): his hand reaches to anything, is able to raise it, or with an accusative, obtains, gets anything (used in the same sense in Lev 14:30, Lev 14:31), or else absolutely, acquires, or gets rich (Lev 25:26, Lev 25:47). 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 of grace could offer a minchah, 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 "his handful" and "a memorial" (Azcarah), see Lev 2:2. "In one of these" (Lev 5:13 as in Lev 5:5): cf. Lev 4:2. "And let it (the remainder of the meal offered) belong to the priest like the meat-offering:" i.e., as being most holy (Lev 2:3).

Verse 14

(Ch. 5:14-6:7) (Note: In the original the division of verses in the Hebrew text is followed; but we have thought it better to keep to the arrangement adopted in our English version. - Tr.) The Trespass-Offerings. - These were 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 first is, "if a soul commit a breach of trust, and sin in going wrong in the holy gifts of Jehovah." מעל, lit., to cover, hence מעיל 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 (Lev 26:40; Deu 32:51; Jos 22:16), or by infringing upon His rights, abstracting something that rightfully belonged to Him. Thus in Jos 7:1; Jos 22:20, it is applied to fraud in relation to that which had been put under the ban; and in Num 5:12, Num 5:27,it is also applied to a married woman's unfaithfulness to her husband: so that sin was called מעל, 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 Lev 21:22). חטא with מן is constructio praegnans: to sin in anything by taking away from Jehovah that which belonged to Him. בּשׁגגה, in error (see Lev 4:2): i.e., in a forgetful or negligent way. Whoever sinned in this way was to offer to the Lord as his guilt (see Lev 5:6) a ram from the flock without blemish for a trespass-offering (lit., guilt-offering), according to the estimate of Moses, whose place was afterwards taken by the officiating priest (Lev 27:12; Num 18:16). שׁקלים כּסף "money of shekels," i.e., several shekels in amount, which Abenezra and others have explained, no doubt correctly, as meaning that the ram was 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 ut sup. p. 645). "In the holy shekel:" see Exo 30:13. 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 case of the redemption of the first-born, of the vegetable tithe, or of what had been vowed to God (Lev 27:27, Lev 27:31, and Lev 27:13, Lev 27:15, Lev 27:19). The ceremony to be observed in the offering of the ram is described in Lev 7:1. It was the same as that of the sin-offerings, whose blood was not brought into the holy place, except with regard to the sprinkling of the blood, and in this the trespass-offering resembled the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. The second case (Lev 5:17-19), 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 Lev 4:27 in connection with those sins which were to be expiated by a sin-offering. But the violation of right can only have consisted in an invasion of Jehovah's rights with regard to Israel, and not, as Knobel supposes, in an 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, which treats of the violation of the rights of a neighbour, is separated by a special introductory formula. The expression, "and wist it not," refers to ignorance of the sin, and not of the divine commands; as may be clearly seen from Lev 5:18 : "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 right, 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 (Lev 6:1-7) 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. "If a man deny to his neighbour (כּחשׁ with a double ב obj., to deny a thing to a person) a pikkadon (i.e., a deposit, a thing entrusted to him to keep, Gen 41:36), or יד תּשׂוּמת, "a thing placed in his hand" (handed over to him as a pledge) "or גּזל, a thing robbed" (i.e., the property of a neighbour unjustly appropriated, whether a well, a field, or cattle, Gen 21:25; Mic 2:2; Job 24:2), "or if he have oppressed his neighbour" (i.e., forced something from him or withheld it unjustly, Lev 19:13; Deu 24:14; Jos 12:8; Mal 3:5), "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 (Lev 6:4, Lev 6:5), was to be restored "according to its sum" (cf. Exo 30:12; Num 1:2, 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 Lev 5:16). "To him to whom it (belongs), shall he give it" אשׁמתו בּיום: 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 Lev 5:15, Lev 5:16, and Lev 5:18, that he might receive expiation and forgiveness on account of what he had done. If now, in order to obtain a clear view of the much canvassed difference between the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, (Note: For the different views, see Bhr's Symbolik; Winer's bibl. R. W.; Kurtz on Sacrificial Worship; Riehm, theol. Stud. und Krit. 1854, pp. 93ff.; Rinck, id. 1855, p. 369; Oehler in Herzog's Cycl.) we look at once at the other cases, for which trespass-offerings were commanded in the law; we find in Num 5:5-8 not only 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 Lev 5:2-7 of the present chapter. So also the guilt of a man who had lain with the slave of another (Lev 19:20-22) 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 (Lev 14:12.), or of a Nazarite who had been defiled by a corpse (Num 6:12), 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, (Note: Even in the case of the trespass-offering, which those who had taken heathen wives offered at Ezra's instigation (Ezr 10:18.), it had reference to a trespass (cf. vv. 2 and 10), an act of unfaithfulness to Jehovah, which demanded satisfaction. And so again the Philistines (Sa1 6:3.), 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.) and the ritual also points to this. The animal sacrificed was always a ram, except in the cases mentioned in Lev 14:12. and Num 6:12. This fact alone clearly distinguishes the trespass-offerings from the sin-offerings, for which all kinds of sacrifices were offered from an ox to a pigeon, the choice of the 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 peace-offerings, was merely swung against the wall of the altar (Lev 7:2). 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-offering; 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.

Verse 1

I. The offences here supposed are, 1. A man's concealing the truth when he was sworn as a witness to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Judges among the Jews had power to adjure not only the witnesses, as with us, but the person suspected (contrary to a rule of our law, that no man is bound to accuse himself), as appears by the high priest adjuring our Saviour, who thereupon answered, though before he stood silent, Mat 26:63, Mat 26:64. Now (Lev 5:1), If a soul sin (that is, a person, for the soul is the man), if he hear the voice of swearing (that is, if he be adjured to testify what he knows, by an oath of the Lord upon him, Kg1 8:31), if in such a case, for fear of offending one that either has been his friend or may be his enemy, he refuses to give evidence, or gives it but in part, he shall bear his iniquity. And that is a heavy burden, which, if some course be not taken to get it removed, will sink a man to the lowest hell. He that heareth cursing (that is, that is thus adjured) and betrayeth it not (that is, stifles his evidence, and does not utter it), he is a partner with the sinner, and hateth his own soul; see Pro 29:24. Let all that are called out at any time to bear testimony think of this law, and be free and open in their evidence, and take heed of prevaricating. An oath of the Lord is a sacred thing, and not to be dallied with. 2. A man's touching any thing that was ceremonially unclean, Lev 5:2, Lev 5:3. If a man, polluted by such touch, came into the sanctuary inconsiderately, or if he neglected to wash himself according to the law, then he was to look upon himself as under guilt, and must bring his offering. Though his touching the unclean thing contracted only a ceremonial defilement, yet his neglect to wash himself according to the law was such an instance either of carelessness or contempt as contracted a moral guilt. If at first it be hidden from him, yet when he knows it he shall be guilty. Note, As soon as ever God by his Spirit convinces our consciences of any sin or duty we must immediately set in with the conviction, and prosecute it, as those that are not ashamed to own our former mistake. 3. Rash swearing. If a man binds himself by an oath that he will do or not do such a thing, and the performance of his oath afterwards proves either unlawful or impracticable, by which he is discharged from the obligation, yet he must bring an offering to atone for his fully in swearing so rashly, as David that he would kill Nabal. And then it was that he must say before the angel that it was an error, Ecc 5:6. He shall be guilty in one of these (Lev 5:4), guilty if he do not perform his oath, and yet, if the matter of it were evil, guilty if he do. Such wretched dilemmas as these do some men bring themselves into by their own rashness and folly; go which way they will their consciences are wounded, sin stares them in the face, so sadly are they snared in the words of their mouth. A more sad dilemma this is than that of the lepers, "If we sit still, we die; if we stir, we die." Wisdom and watchfulness beforehand would prevent these straits. II. Now in these cases, 1. The offender must confess his sin and bring his offering (Lev 5:5, Lev 5:6); and the offering was not accepted unless it was accompanied with a penitential confession and a humble prayer for pardon. Observe, The confession must be particular, that he hath sinned in that thing; such was David's confession (Psa 51:4), I have done this evil; and Achan's (Jos 7:20), Thus and thus have I done. Deceit lies in generals; many will own in general they have sinned, for that all must own, so that it is not any particular reproach to them; but that they have sinned in this thing they stand too much upon their honour to acknowledge: but the way to be well assured of pardon, and to be well armed against sin for the future, is to be particular in our penitent confessions. 2. The priest must make atonement for him. As the atonement was not accepted without his repentance, so his repentance would not justify him without the atonement. Thus, in our reconciliation to God, Christ's part and ours are both needful.

Verse 7

Provision is here made for the poor of God's people, and the pacifying of their consciences under the sense of guilt. Those that were not able to bring a lamb might bring for a sin-offering a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons; nay, if any were so extremely poor that they were not able to procure these so often as they would have occasion, they might bring a pottle of fine flour, and this should be accepted. Thus the expense of the sin-offering was brought lower than that of any other offering, to teach us that no man's poverty shall ever be a bar in the way of his pardon. The poorest of all may have atonement made for them, if it be not their own fault. Thus the poor are evangelized; and no man shall say that he had not wherewithal to bear the charges of a journey to heaven. Now, I. If the sinner brought two doves, one was to be offered for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering, Lev 5:7. Observe, 1. Before he offered the burnt-offering, which was for the honour and praise of God, he must offer the sin-offering, to make atonement. We must first see to it that our peace be made with God, and then we may expect that our services for his glory will be accepted. The sin-offering must make way for the burnt-offering. 2. After the sin-offering, which made atonement, came the burnt-offering, as an acknowledgment of the great mercy of God in appointing and accepting the atonement. II. If he brought fine flour, a handful of it was to be offered, but without either oil or frankincense (Lev 5:11), not only because this would make it too costly for the poor, for whose comfort this sacrifice was appointed, but because it was a sin-offering, and therefore, to show the loathsomeness of the sin for which it was offered, it must not be made grateful either to the taste by oil or to the smell by frankincense. The unsavouriness of the offering was to intimate that the sinner must never relish his sin again as he had done. God by these sacrifices did speak, 1. Comfort to those that had offended, that they might not despair, nor pine away in their iniquity; but, peace being thus made for them with God, they might have peace in him. 2. Caution likewise not to offend any more, remembering what an expensive troublesome thing it was to make atonement.

Verse 14

Hitherto in this chapter orders were given concerning those sacrifices that were both sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, for they go by both names, Lev 5:6. Here we have the law concerning those that were properly and peculiarly trespass-offerings, which were offered to atone for trespasses done against a neighbour, those sins we commonly call trespasses. Now injuries done to another may be either in holy things or in common things; of the former we have the law in these verses; of the latter in the beginning of the next chapter. If a man did harm (as it is Lev 5:16) in the holy things of the Lord, he thereby committed a trespass against the priests, the Lord's ministers, who were entrusted with the care of these holy things, and had the benefit of them. Now if a man did alienate or convert to his own use any thing that was dedicated to God, unwittingly, he was to bring this sacrifice; as suppose he had ignorantly made use of the tithes, or first-fruits, or first-born of his cattle, or (which, it should seem by Lev 22:14-16, is principally meant here) had eaten any of those parts of the sacrifices which were appropriated to the priests; this was a trespass. It is supposed to be done through mistake, or forgetfulness, for want either of care or zeal; for if it was done presumptuously, and in contempt of the law, the offender died without mercy, Heb 10:28. But in case of negligence and ignorance this sacrifice was appointed; and Moses is told, 1. What must be done in case the trespass appeared to be certain. The trespasser must bring an offering to the Lord, which, in all those that were purely trespass-offerings, must be a ram without blemish, "of the second year," say the Jewish doctors. He must likewise make restitution to the priest, according to a just estimation of the thing which he had so alienated, adding a fifth part to it, that he might learn to take more heed next time of embezzling what was sacred to God, finding to his cost that there was nothing got by it, and that he paid dearly for his oversights. 2. What must be done in case it were doubtful whether he had trespassed or no; he had cause to suspect it, but he wist it not (Lev 5:17), that is, he was not very certain; in this case, because it is good to be sure, he must bring his trespass-offering, and the value of that which he feared he had embezzled, only he was not to add the fifth part to it. Now this was designed to show the very great evil there is in sacrilege. Achan, that was guilty of it presumptuously, died for it; so did Ananias and Sapphira. But this goes further to show the evil of it, that if a man had, through mere ignorance, and unwittingly, alienated the holy things, nay, if he did but suspect that he had done so, he must be at the expense, not only of a full restitution with interest, but of an offering, with the trouble of bringing it, and must take shame to himself, by making confession of it; so bad a thing is it to invade God's property, and so cautious should we be to abstain from all appearances of this evil. We are also taught here to be jealous over ourselves with a godly jealousy, to ask pardon for the sin, and make satisfaction for the wrong, which we do but suspect ourselves guilty of. In doubtful cases we should take and keep the safer side.

Verse 1

5:1-6 These verses list examples of sins covered by the sin offering (4:2). When a person realized he or she had committed an offense, the next step was to make it right by admitting guilt and bringing a sin offering.

5:1 The first infraction was the failure to testify when called as a witness before a court. Failure to testify was not a passive act because it actively aided the criminal. • you will be punished (literally you become guilty or you realize your guilt): Anticipating God’s punishment for the sin, the guilty party offered the sacrifice to remove the guilt and escape the punishment.

Verse 2

5:2 ceremonially unclean: “Clean” and “unclean” did not pertain to hygiene (see 11:1–15:33) but to suitability for participating in worship or, in the case of animals, suitability for sacrifice or human consumption. A list of clean and unclean animals is found in 11:1-47. The requirement for becoming clean after touching an unclean animal was merely to wash one’s clothes and remain apart from the community until evening (11:25). Most likely, therefore, the requirement of this sin offering indicates that the person had failed to follow the prescription for cleansing (11:27-28).

Verse 3

5:3 Any bodily discharge, even blood, would render a person temporarily unclean (chs 11–15). The uncleanness itself was not sin, but it was a sin to neglect the uncleanness, allowing it to spread. Once people became aware of their unclean state, they were guilty if they neglected it.

Verse 4

5:4 Oaths could be taken in the name of the Lord. However, a foolish vow, one thoughtlessly made, was a blasphemous misuse of the Lord’s name (Exod 20:7). Accordingly, vows must be fulfilled (see Num 30:2; Deut 23:21-23; Eccl 5:4-6).

Verse 5

5:5 When you become aware of your guilt: All the situations that required a sin offering assumed guilt by accident or ignorance. As soon as a person became aware of having done something improper, he or she became guilty and was required to attend to it. Known sins were to be dealt with; it was a sin in itself to know what was right and not do it (see 5:17; Jas 4:17). • confess: Sacrifice for sin without admission of guilt would be a meaningless ritual. When the sacrificial animal was presented to the priest, the worshiper likely told the priest why it was being offered.

Verse 6

5:6 The penalty was apparently fulfilled by the required sacrifice (see study note on 4:1–5:13). • The actions described in 5:1-5 best fit those of a layperson, so a female offering was permitted, in keeping with the principle demonstrated in 4:28, 32.

Verse 7

5:7-13 The poor also needed to secure atonement and reconciliation. Birds (5:7) were permitted for those too poor to afford a lamb (cp. 1:14-17). Although an animal offering was typically required for atonement (17:11), God in his grace allowed the bloodless offering of flour if the worshiper could not even afford two birds (5:11).

5:7 The sin offerings included both a portion as a burnt offering and a portion that was first offered, then given to the priests (cp. 4:22-35; 6:24-30). Because of their small size, two birds were required—one for each type of offering.

Verse 11

5:11 The sin offering was not to be adorned with olive oil or . . . frankincense. These were required for the grain offering, which was the individual’s gift to the Lord (see 2:1), given to express worship. The sin offering made atonement; its purpose was to obtain forgiveness, requiring that the offering be completely unadorned.

Verse 13

5:13 making them right: See study notes on 1:4; 4:20. • rest of the flour: See study note on 2:3.

Verse 14

5:14–6:7 The guilt offering (Hebrew ’asham, “guilt”) dealt with property loss and damages, whether sacred (5:14-16) or secular (6:1-7). It involved restitution as well as compensation for the loss (5:16; 6:5). It could be called a “penalty offering,” because the ram was a penalty, or perhaps a “restitution offering,” because of the need to make restitution for the loss before the ram was offered. In the guilt offering (5:14–6:7), the loss involved was not only a failure in God’s sight, as with the sin offering, but also a loss of property to another person or to the sanctuary. Cp. Matt 5:23-24.

Verse 15

5:15 unintentionally defiling: Damage to sacred property was distinguished from damage to secular property. The sacrifice was effective only if the damage to sacred property had been committed accidentally. Deliberate damage, such as vandalism, to something sacred was blasphemous. As with other deliberate sins (Num 15:30-31), no means was specified for its atonement. No devout believer would defiantly continue in sin (see 1 Jn 3:9). • The sanctuary shekel was not a coin but a standardized unit for measuring weight. It was used to evaluate the ram being offered. Some scholars suggest that this text permits the substitution of the appropriate amount of silver for the ram.

Verse 16

5:16 The surcharge of an additional 20 percent provided compensation to the owner for loss or damage to property. The surcharge for sacred property was paid directly to the priests. Accidental damage to sacred property occurred when a person unintentionally ate the sacred offerings (22:14) or omitted the tithe (27:31). A similar surcharge was involved in redeeming an animal (27:13, 27).

Verse 17

5:17-19 This paragraph provides general principles for the guilt offering. Even if unaware of the infraction, an individual was guilty and had to provide the appropriate guilt offering. This applied to both sacred and secular property (5:14-16; 6:1-7).