Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsh, [1857-78], at sacred-texts.com
Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).
Aaron and his sons were to keep away from the holy gifts of the children of Israel, which they consecrated to Jehovah, that they might not profane the holy name of Jehovah by defiling them הנּזר with מן to keep away, separate one's self from anything, i.e., not to regard or treat them as on a par with unconsecrated things. The words, "which they sanctify to Me," are a supplementary apposition, added as a more precise definition of the "holy things of the children of Israel;" as the expression "holy things" was applied to the holy objects universally, including the furniture of the tabernacle. Here, however, the reference is solely to the holy offerings or gifts, which were not placed upon the altar, but presented to the Lord as heave-offerings and wave-offerings, and assigned by Him to the priests as the servants of His house, for their maintenance (Num 18:11-19, Num 18:26-29). None of the descendants of Aaron were to approach these gifts, which were set apart for them, - i.e., to touch them either for the purpose of eating, or making them ready for eating, - whilst any uncleanness was upon them, on pain of extermination.
No leper was to touch them (see Lev 13:2), or person with gonorrhaea (Lev 15:2), until he was clean; no one who had touched a person defiled by a corpse (Lev 19:28; Num 19:22), or whose seed had gone from him (Lev 15:16, Lev 15:18); and no one who had touched an unclean creeping animal, or an unclean man. טמאתו לכל, as in Lev 5:3, a closer definition of לו יטמא אשׁר, "who is unclean to him with regard to (on account of) any uncleanness which he may have."
"A soul which touches it," i.e., any son of Aaron, who had touched either an unclean person or thing, was to be unclean till the evening, and then bathe his body; after sunset, i.e., when the day was over, he became clean, and could eat of the sanctified things, for they were his food.
In this connection the command given to all the Israelites, not to eat anything that had fallen down dead or been torn in pieces (Lev 17:15-16), is repeated with special reference to the priests. (On. Lev 22:9, see Lev 8:35; Lev 18:30, and Lev 19:17). יחלּלהוּ, "because they have defiled it (the sanctified thing)."
No stranger was to eat a sanctified thing. זר is in general the non-priest, then any person who was not fully incorporated into a priestly family, e.g., a visitor or day-labourer (cf. Exo 12:49), who were neither of them members of his family.
On the other hand, slaves bought for money, or born in the house, became members of his family and lived upon his bread; they were therefore allowed to eat of that which was sanctified along with him, since the slaves were, in fact, formally incorporated into the nation by circumcision (Gen 17:12-13).
So again the daughter of a priest, if she became a widow, or was put away by her husband, and returned childless to her father's house, and became a member of his family again, just as in the days of her youth, might eat of the holy things. But if she had any children, then after the death of her husband, or after her divorce, she formed with them a family of her own, which could not be incorporated into the priesthood, of course always supposing that her husband was not a priest.
But if any one (i.e., a layman) should eat unawares of that which was sanctified, he was to bring it, i.e., an equivalent for it, with the addition of a fifth as a compensation for the priest; like a man who had sinned by unfaithfulness in relation to that which was sanctified (Lev 5:16). - In the concluding exhortation in Lev 22:15 and Lev 22:16, the subject to יחלּלוּ (profane) and השּׂאוּ (bear) is indefinite, and the passage to be rendered thus: "They are not to profane the sanctified gifts of the children of Israel, what they heave for the Lord (namely, by letting laymen eat of them), and are to cause them (the laymen) who do this unawares to bear a trespass-sin (by imposing the compensation mentioned in Lev 22:14), if they eat their (the priests') sanctified gifts." Understood in this way, both verses furnish a fitting conclusion to the section Lev 22:10-14. On the other hand, according to the traditional interpretation of these verses, the priesthood is regarded as the subject of the first verb, and a negative supplied before the second. Both of these are arbitrary and quite indefensible, because Lev 22:10-14 do not refer to the priests but to laymen, and in the latter case we should expect אליהם ישׂאוּ רלא (cf. Lev 22:9) instead of the unusual אותם השּׂאוּ.
Acceptable Sacrifices. - Lev 22:18-20. Every sacrifice offered to the Lord by an Israelite or foreigner, in consequence of a vow or as a freewill-offering (cf. Lev 7:16), was to be faultless and male, "for good pleasure to the offerer" (cf. Lev 1:3), i.e., to secure for him the good pleasure of God. An animal with a fault would not be acceptable.
Every peace-offering was also to be faultless, whether brought "to fulfil a special (important) vow" (cf. Num 15:3, Num 15:8 : פּלּא, from פּלא to be great, distinguished, wonderful), or as a freewill gift; that is to say, it was to be free from such faults as blindness, or a broken limb (from lameness therefore: Deu 15:21), or cutting (i.e., mutilation, answering to חרוּם Lev 21:18), or an abscess (יבּלת, from יבל to flow, probably a flowing suppurating abscess).
As a voluntary peace-offering they might indeed offer an ox or sheep that was רקלוּט שׂרוּע, "stretched out and drawn together," i.e., with the whole body or certain limbs either too large or too small;
(Note: In explanation of these words Knobel very properly remarks, that with the Greeks the sacrificial animal was required to be ἀφελής (Pollux i. 1, 26), upon which Hesychius observes, μήτε πλεονάζων μήτε δέων τι τοῦ σώματος.)
but such an animal could not be acceptable as a votive offering.
Castrated animals were not to be sacrificed, nor in fact to be kept in the land at all. מעוּך compressus, θλιβίας, an animal with the stones crushed; כּתוּת contusus, θλασίας, with them beaten to pieces; נתוּק avulsus, σπάδων, with them twisted off; כּרוּי excisus, τομίας or ἐκτομίας, with them cut off. In all these different ways was the operation performed among the ancients (cf. Aristot. hist. an. ix. 37, 3; Colum. vi. 26, vii. 11; Pallad. vi. 7). "And in your land ye shall not make," sc., וגו מעוּך, i.e., castrated animals, that is to say, "not castrate animals." This explanation, which is the one given by Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 40) and all the Rabbins, is required by the expression "in your land," which does not at all suit the interpretation adopted by Clericus and Knobel, who understand by עשׂה the preparation of sacrifices, for sacrifices were never prepared outside the land. The castration of animals is a mutilation of God's creation, and the prohibition of it was based upon the same principle as that of mixing heterogeneous things in Lev 19:19.
Again, the Israelites were not to accept any one of all these, i.e., the faulty animals described, as sacrifice from a foreigner. "For their corruption is in them," i.e., something corrupt, a fault, adheres to them; so that such offerings could not procure good pleasure towards them. - In Lev 22:26-30 three laws are given of a similar character.
A young ox, sheep, or goat was to be seven days under its mother, and could only be sacrificed from the eighth day onwards, according to the rule laid down in Exo 22:29 with regard to the first-born. The reason for this was, that the young animal had not attained to a mature and self-sustained life during the first week of its existence.
(Note: For this reason the following rule was also laid down by the Romans: Suis faetus sacrificio die quinto purus est, pecoris die octavo, bovis tricesimo (Plin. h. n. 8, 51).)
This maturity was not reached till after the lapse of a week, that period of time sanctified by the creation. There is no rule laid down in the law respecting the age up to which an animal was admissible in sacrifice. Bullocks, i.e., steers or young oxen of more than a year old, are frequently mentioned and prescribed for the festal sacrifices (for the young ox of less than a year old is called עגל; Lev 9:3), viz., as burnt-offerings in Lev 23:18; Num 7:15, Num 7:21, Num 7:27, Num 7:33, Num 7:39.; Num 8:8; Num 15:24; Num 28:11, Num 28:19, Num 28:27; Num 29:2, Num 29:8, and as sin-offerings in Lev 4:3, Lev 4:14; Lev 16:3; - sheep (lambs) of one year old are also prescribed as burnt-offerings in Lev 9:3; Lev 12:6; Lev 23:12; Exo 29:38; Num 6:14; Num 7:17, Num 7:21, Num 7:27, Num 7:33, Num 7:39., Num 28:3, Num 28:9, Num 28:19, Num 28:27; Num 29:2, Num 29:8, Num 29:13, Num 29:17., as peace-offerings in Num 7:17, Num 7:23; Num 29:35., and as trespass-offerings in Num 6:12; also a yearling ewe as a sin-offering in Lev 14:10 and Num 6:14, and a yearling goat in Num 15:27. They generally brought older oxen or bullocks for peace-offerings (Num 7:17; Num 23:29.), and sometimes as burnt-offerings. In Jdg 6:25 an ox of seven years old is said to have been brought as a burnt-offering; and there can be no doubt that the goats and rams presented as sin-offerings and trespass-offerings were more than a year old.
The command not to kill an ox or sheep at the same time as its young is related to the law in Exo 23:19 and Deu 22:6-7, and was intended to lay it down as a duty on the part of the Israelites to keep sacred the relation which God had established between parent and offspring. - In Lev 22:29, Lev 22:30, the command to eat the flesh of the animal on the day on which it was offered (Lev 7:15; Lev 19:5-6) is repeated with special reference to the praise-offering.
Concluding exhortation, as in Lev 18:29; Lev 19:37. (On Lev 22:32, cf. Lev 18:21 and Lev 11:44-45.)