manner, but must also have formed one factor in the ceremony of expiation. The burning outside the camp was rendered necessary, because the sacrifice had respect to the expiation of the priesthood, and the flesh or body of the bullock, which had been made חטּאת by the laying on of the hand, could not be eaten by the priests as the body of sin, that by the holiness of their official character they might bear and expiate the sin imputed to the sacrifice (see at Lev 10:17). In this case it was necessary that it should be given up to the effect of sin, viz., to death or destruction by fire, and that outside the camp; in other words, outside the kingdom of God, from which everything dead was removed. But, inasmuch as it was sacrificial flesh, and therefore most holy by virtue of its destination; in order that it might not be made an abomination, it was not to be burned in an unclean place, where carrion and other abominations were thrown (Lev 14:40, Lev 14:45), but in the clean place, outside the camp, to which the ashes of the altar of burnt-offering were removed, as being the earthly sediment and remains of the sacrifices that had ascended to God in the purifying flames of the altar-fire.[1]
verses 13-19
Sin of the whole congregation. - This is still further defined, as consisting in the fact that the thing was hid (נעלּם)[2] from the eyes of the congregation, i.e., that it was a sin
- ↑ The most holy character of the flesh of the sin-offering (Lev 6:18.) furnishes no valid argument against the correctness of this explanation of the burning; for, in the first place, there is an essential difference between real or inherent sin, and sin imputed or merely transferred; and secondly, the flesh of the sin-offering was called most holy, not in a moral, but only in a liturgical or ritual sense, as subservient to the most holy purpose of wiping away sin; on which account it was to be entirely removed from all appropriation to earthly objects. Moreover, the idea that sin was imputed to the sin-offering, that it was made sin by the laying on of the hand, has a firm basis in the sacrifice of the red cow (Num 19), ), and also occurs among the Greeks (see Oehler in Herzog's Cycl.).
- ↑ In the correct editions נעלּם has dagesh both here and in Lev 5:2, Lev 5:4, as Delitzsch informs me, according to an old rule in pointing, which required that every consonant which followed a syllable terminating with a guttural should be pointed with dagesh, if the guttural was to be read with a quiescent sheva and not with chateph. This is the case in ויּאסּר in Gen 46:29; Exo 14:6, תּעלּים in Psa 10:1, and other words in the critical edition of the Psalter which has been carefully revised by Bδr according to the Masora, and published with an introduction by Delitzsch. In other passages, such as בּכל־לּבּי Psa 9:2, על־לּשׁנו Psa 15:3, etc., the dagesh is introduced to prevent the second letter from being lost in the preceding one through the rapidity of reading. - Ewald's conjectures and remarks about this “dagesh, which is found in certain MSS,” is a proof that he was not acquainted with this rule which the Masora recognises.
