Chapter commentary
Leviticus Chapter 22
1
Le 22:1-9.
English original
Le 22:1-9.
THE PRIESTS IN THEIR UNCLEANNESS.
2
Untitled
2. 你吩咐亞倫和他子孫，使他們與聖物隔離——「隔離」在摩西禮儀的用語中意為「禁戒」；因此這條吩咐的意思是：祭司應禁食那些祭物中本屬他們階層、卻只有那些在律法上潔淨的人才可享用的一部分。
免得他們褻瀆我的聖名，在他們所獻為聖的物上等——即：他們不可因缺乏應有的敬畏，而給人褻瀆我聖名的機會。對獻與神之物漫不經心或不敬的使用，會貶損神的名，並使神的崇拜蒙受輕視。
English original
2. Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things--"To separate" means, in the language of the Mosaic ritual, "to abstain"; and therefore the import of this injunction is that the priests should abstain from eating that part of the sacrifices which, though belonging to their order, was to be partaken of only by such of them as were free from legal impurities.
that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me, &c.--that is, let them not, by their want of due reverence, give occasion to profane my holy name. A careless or irreverent use of things consecrated to God tends to dishonor the name and bring disrespect on the worship of God.
3
Untitled
3. 凡……就近聖物的——祭司因偶有的不潔而受到許多細微的限制，這些限制使他們時刻警惕，唯恐自己不配擔任聖事，有助於充分保持對神的敬畏與順服之心。每一次的禁令或吩咐，都喚醒他們心中對罪與責任的觀念。但為何對因痲瘋或因觸碰屍體而被褫奪資格的祭司另立明文規定
[Le 22:4]，
而一條排除一切此等人於社會之外的普遍律法早已生效呢？因為祭司可能因習以為常而輕忽宗教，在違規犯罪時以聖職的外衣來掩護自己。因此立此律法，指明排除於聖所之外的那些短暫不潔的主要形式，使祭司不至自認比其餘百姓更有特權；並使他們知道，不但絲毫不能免除律法的制裁，反而因祭司的身分，更有義務遵守律法的每一字句與每一細則。
English original
3. Whosoever he be . . . that goeth unto the holy things--The multitude of minute restrictions to which the priests, from accidental defilement, were subjected, by keeping them constantly on their guard lest they should be unfit for the sacred service, tended to preserve in full exercise the feeling of awe and submission to the authority of God. The ideas of sin and duty were awakened in their breasts by every case to which either an interdict or an injunction was applied. But why enact an express statute for priests disqualified by the leprosy or polluting touch of a carcass
[Le 22:4],
when a general law was already in force which excluded from society all persons in that condition? Because priests might be apt, from familiarity, to trifle with religion, and in committing irregularities or sins, to shelter themselves under the cloak of the sacred office. This law, therefore, was passed, specifying the chief forms of temporary defilement which excluded from the sanctuary, that priests might not deem themselves entitled to greater license than the rest of the people; and that so far from being in any degree exempted from the sanctions of the law, they were under greater obligations, by their priestly station, to observe it in its strict letter and its smallest enactments.
4
Untitled
4-6. 用水洗身——任何以色列人若染上了那使他不能享受慣常權利的不潔，又在法律上得了潔淨、免除了那使人不配的不潔，就必須以全身浸入水中來表明他恢復的狀態。雖然一切禮儀上的不潔都構成被排除的根據，但不潔有等級之分，招致長短不同的被排除期；要除去這些不潔，須按案情輕微或惡性而遵守不同的禮儀。一個人若無意中接觸了不潔的動物，就在規定的時間內不潔；期滿之後，他便用水洗，作為恢復潔淨的標記。但痲瘋患者只要仍患此病，就一直不潔，痊癒之後他也用水洗——不是為了潔淨，因為水對此無效，而是表明他已潔淨。沒有一個痲瘋患者藉著用水而恢復交通的記載；水僅作為外在可見的記號，表明這樣的恢復將要進行。利未記中充滿了這樣的例子：在一切禮儀的洗滌中，正如不潔意味著失去權利，照樣水的洗禮表明恢復那些權利。沒有例外；因為不潔的以色列人既被逐出會眾，照樣不潔的祭司也不能在聖所履行聖職；在兩者情況中，都要求同樣的遵守——藉著所定的洗禮之禮，正式表示他們重新獲得失去的權利。若有人忽略或拒絕行這洗禮，就是違背了一條明確的誡命，仍留在他的不潔中；他沒有利用這權利，因此被稱為從耶和華面前被「剪除」。
English original
4-6. wash his flesh with water--Any Israelite who had contracted a defilement of such a nature as debarred him from the enjoyment of his wonted privileges, and had been legally cleansed from the disqualifying impurity, was bound to indicate his state of recovery by the immersion of his whole person in water. Although all ceremonial impurity formed a ground of exclusion, there were degrees of impurity which entailed a longer or shorter period of excommunication, and for the removal of which different rites required to be observed according to the trivial or the malignant nature of the case. A person who came inadvertently into contact with an unclean animal was rendered unclean for a specified period; and then, at the expiry of that term, he washed, in token of his recovered purity. But a leper was unclean so long as he remained subject to that disease, and on his convalescence, he also washed, not to cleanse himself, for the water was ineffectual for that purpose, but to signify that he was clean. Not a single case is recorded of a leper being restored to communion by the use of water; it served only as an outward and visible sign that such a restoration was to be made. The Book of Leviticus abounds with examples which show that in all the ceremonial washings, as uncleanness meant loss of privileges, so baptism with water indicated a restoration to those privileges. There was no exemption; for as the unclean Israelite was exiled from the congregation, so the unclean priest was disqualified from executing his sacred functions in the sanctuary; and in the case of both, the same observance was required--a formal intimation of their being readmitted to forfeited privileges was intimated by the appointed rite of baptism. If any one neglected or refused to perform the washing, he disobeyed a positive precept, and he remained in his uncleanness; he forbore to avail himself of this privilege, and was therefore said to be "cut off" from the presence of the Lord.
8
Untitled
8. 自死的——天然的情感對這樣的食物感到厭惡。這本可交由希伯來人自行決定，可推想他們（如同一切文明國家的人民）無需明文的禁令便會禁戒不用。但一條明文的誡命是必要的，為要使他們知道：凡自死或因病而死的，都因那禁止他們吃帶血之肉的律法之運作而被禁止。
English original
8. dieth of itself--The feelings of nature revolt against such food. It might have been left to the discretion of the Hebrews, who it may be supposed (like the people of all civilized nations) would have abstained from the use of it without any positive interdict. But an express precept was necessary to show them that whatever died naturally or from disease, was prohibited to them by the operation of that law which forbade them the use of any meat with its blood.
10
Le 22:10-16.
Le 22:10-16.
誰可以吃祭司家中的聖物
10-13. 凡外人不可吃聖物——為供養主禮祭司而分配的祭物部分，只限於他自己家人的專用。暫時的客人或雇工不可吃；但買來的或家生的奴僕卻獲例外，因為這樣的人是他家中固定的成員。同樣的原則下，他自己嫁給非祭司之丈夫的女兒，也不能吃。然而，她若是寡居無子，便恢復婚前的父家權利。但她若已成為母親，因她的兒女無權享受祭司的權利，她便不得不在父家之外為兒女另尋供養。
English original
Le 22:10-16.
WHO OF THE PRIESTS' HOUSE MAY EAT OF THEM.
10-13. There shall no stranger eat the holy thing--The portion of the sacrifices assigned for the support of the officiating priests was restricted to the exclusive use of his own family. A temporary guest or a hired servant was not at liberty to eat of them; but an exception was made in favor of a bought or homeborn slave, because such was a stated member of his household. On the same principle, his own daughter, who married a husband not a priest, could not eat of them. However, if a widow and childless, she was reinstated in the privileges of her father's house as before her marriage. But if she had become a mother, as her children had no right to the privileges of the priesthood, she was under a necessity of finding support for them elsewhere than under her father's roof.
13
Untitled
13. 外人都不可吃——此處重複
(Le 22:10)
所記的禁令，以顯示其嚴格性。在這方面，所有的希伯來人，甚至與祭司最親近的鄰舍——除了他家中的人——都被視為外人，因此他們無權吃壇上所獻之物。
English original
13. there shall no stranger eat thereof--The interdict recorded
(Le 22:10)
is repeated to show its stringency. All the Hebrews, even the nearest neighbors of the priest, the members of his family excepted, were considered strangers in this respect, so that they had no right to eat of things offered at the altar.
14
Untitled
14. 若有人誤吃聖物——一個普通以色列人可能不知不覺吃了當作十分之一、初熟之果等獻上的東西，發現自己無意中的過錯之後，他不僅要歸還所用之量，還要加罰五分之一，給祭司帶入聖所。
English original
14. if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly--A common Israelite might unconsciously partake of what had been offered as tithes, first-fruits, &c., and on discovering his unintentional error, he was not only to restore as much as he had used, but be fined in a fifth part more for the priests to carry into the sanctuary.
15
Untitled
15, 16. 他們不可褻瀆以色列人的聖物——「他們」所指為誰，有些難以確定。前文的主題既是論到祭司，有人便認為這也與他們有關；那麼其意便是：若祭司在帶著任何不潔的情況下獻上聖物，便玷污了聖物，全百姓就會因祭司的過失而招致罪咎[CALVIN]。照另一些人的見解，「以色列人」是句中的主語；因此其意為：以色列人不可因觸摸他們的供物或保留其中任何部分，而褻瀆或玷污其供物，免得他們招致吃那單單分定歸祭司之物的罪[CALMET]。
English original
15, 16. they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel--There is some difficulty felt in determining to whom "they" refers. The subject of the preceding context being occupied about the priests, it is supposed by some that this relates to them also; and the meaning then is that the whole people would incur guilt through the fault of the priests, if they should defile the sacred offerings, which they would have done had they presented them while under any defilement [CALVIN]. According to others, "the children of Israel" is the nominative in the sentence; which thus signifies, the children of Israel shall not profane or defile their offerings, by touching them or reserving any part of them, lest they incur the guilt of eating what is divinely appointed to the priests alone [CALMET].
17
Le 22:17-33.
Le 22:17-33.
祭牲必須無瑕疵
English original
Le 22:17-33.
THE SACRIFICES MUST BE WITHOUT BLEMISH.
19
Untitled
19. 你們要獻得可蒙悅納——更當作「使你們蒙悅納」。
沒有殘疾的公——這條律法
(Le 1:3)
是基於天然合宜之感，要求在揀選祭牲時格外謹慎。如此極度謹慎的原因在於：祭物或是為神的恩惠而獻上的讚美之表達，或是為求得或保持他的恩寵而設計的方法。若我們假定祭物的意義完全出自它們與耶和華的關係，那麼任何在其種類上不完全的祭牲，都不能視為適合這些目的的工具。祭物可比作臣民獻給君王的禮物，因此神對屬世的猶太人強烈的責備是合理的
(Mal 1:8)。
若會幕以及後來的聖殿被視為大君王的宮殿，那麼祭物就相當於臣民在各樣場合獻給君王的禮物；從這角度來看，它們是他們對君王情感的恰當表達。當臣民想要尊崇他的君王、承認效忠、平息其怒氣、懇求赦免，或為別人代求時，他便帶來禮物；祭物所包含的一切觀念都與這些情感相應——感恩、敬拜、禱告、認罪和贖罪[BIB. SAC.]。
English original
19. Ye shall offer at your own will--rather, to your being accepted.
a male without blemish--This law
(Le 1:3)
is founded on a sense of natural propriety, which required the greatest care to be taken in the selection of animals for sacrifice. The reason for this extreme caution is found in the fact that sacrifices are either an expression of praise to God for His goodness, or else they are the designed means of conciliating or retaining His favor. No victim that was not perfect in its kind could be deemed a fitting instrument for such purposes if we assume that the significance of sacrifices is derived entirely from their relation to Jehovah. Sacrifices may be likened to gifts made to a king by his subjects, and hence the reasonableness of God's strong remonstrance with the worldly-minded Jews
(Mal 1:8).
If the tabernacle, and subsequently the temple, were considered the palace of the great King, then the sacrifices would answer to presents as offered to a monarch on various occasions by his subjects; and in this light they would be the appropriate expressions of their feelings towards their sovereign. When a subject wished to do honor to his sovereign, to acknowledge allegiance, to appease his anger, to supplicate forgiveness, or to intercede for another, he brought a present; and all the ideas involved in sacrifices correspond to these sentiments--those of gratitude, of worship, of prayer, of confession and atonement [BIB. SAC.].
23
Untitled
23. 這個你可以獻等——本節應如此譯：「無論是為樂意祭、還是為許願而獻，都不蒙悅納。」這祭既要求「無瑕疵」
[Le 22:19]，
便象徵神的子民當以真誠的心全心全意地獻上自己；又因要求「完全才蒙悅納」
[Le 22:21]，
便在預表上引導他們歸向那位——沒有他，就不能獻上蒙神悅納之祭的主。
English original
23. that mayest thou offer, &c.--The passage should be rendered thus: "if thou offer it either for a freewill offering, or for a vow, it shall not be accepted." This sacrifice being required to be "without blemish"
[Le 22:19],
symbolically implied that the people of God were to dedicate themselves wholly with sincere purposes of heart, and its being required to be "perfect to be accepted"
[Le 22:21],
led them typically to Him without whom no sacrifice could be offered acceptable to God.
27
Untitled
27, 28. 必七天與母牛同在——牲畜到第八天才被視為完全、才可作食物。祭物既被稱為神的食物
(Le 22:25)，
在出生後立即獻上——那時它們還不宜食用——便表示對宗教的輕蔑；再者，這條禁令如同
Le 22:28
中所含的一樣，也教導了對母獸的人道或溫柔，並確保祭物不致顯出無情的殘忍。
English original
27, 28. it shall be seven days under the dam--Animals were not considered perfect nor good for food till the eighth day. As sacrifices are called the bread or food of God
(Le 22:25),
to offer them immediately after birth, when they were unfit to be eaten, would have indicated a contempt of religion; and besides, this prohibition, as well as that contained in
Le 22:28,
inculcated a lesson of humanity or tenderness to the dam, as well as secured the sacrifices from all appearance of unfeeling cruelty.
Le 22:1-9.
不潔的祭司