Commentaria in Leviticum
Ribera answers otherwise, book 4 On the Temple, chapter 6, namely that in the sin of the pontiff and the people, of which chapter 4, only ignorance of fact intervenes, as when one does not know that what he takes is another’s, or that what he eats is sacred, or that what he touches is polluted; but in trespass ignorance of law intervenes, or rather trespass is called forgetfulness of right and law: for example when one does something which he does not know is forbidden by the law, or certainly does not remember the law. This answer is subtle and probable, but hard to prove.
Verse 3. They shall offer of it (the victim for trespass) the rump.—By this tail the sinner is tropologically admonished, “who desires to correct the motions of his affections, to join to this his purpose the end of perseverance,” says Radulphus.
Properly the victim for trespass belonged to the offering priest, as also the victim for sin. For the reason and law of both is the same, as is said in verse 7. The offerer, however, could give part of the victim to be eaten to other priests and their male sons, but not to females.
Tropologically, in doing penance nothing feminine becomes, but a strong sense and manly purpose are needed, says Hesychius. Read the manly and heroic penances of the ancients in Climacus, step 5, which is on Penance.
Verse 8. The priest that offereth the victim of holocaust shall have the skin thereof,—because of the holocaust, which is wholly burnt to God, nothing else remains to be repaid to the sacrificer but the skin.
Tropologically, the skin is a symbol of patience, as is plain from Job 2:4 and Job 19:20, which is the proper virtue and garment of the priest. So Hesychius. “If the mind,” says St. Gregory, book 5 of the Morals, “is directed to God with strong intention, whatever in this life is bitter to it it counts sweet: all that afflicts it, it thinks rest.” Hence the patient man is perfect, such as a priest ought to be: “For he,” says St. Gregory, book 5, chapter 14, “is truly perfect who is not impatient towards his neighbour’s imperfection. For he who, unable to bear another’s imperfection, abandons patience, is his own witness that he has not yet perfectly advanced. Hence in the Gospel Truth says: In your patience you shall possess your souls. The patient man therefore possesses his soul, because he rules by virtue all the motions of his mind. And in that he laudably conquers and breaks himself, he shows himself unbroken and strong, because when he overcomes himself in his own pleasures, he prepares himself invincible against adversities.”
Verse 10. Whether they be tempered with oil, or dry, to all the sons of Aaron shall be given alike—that is, shall be divided equally among each, as the Hebrew, Chaldee and Septuagint have it. So that to each his own day, his turns, may fall, in which ministering and discharging the priesthood he may claim for himself all that is offered, just as the other priests do in their turns. So these things cohere best with the preceding verse, in which God commanded the mincha to fall to the offering priest. So Radulphus, Lyranus, Abulensis.
Others, as Hesychius, take this verse of the uncooked fine flour, as though it had to be divided equally among all the priests; but the preceding verse they take of the cooked fine flour, or cakes and loaves, which all fell to the offerer. But our version and the very nature of the thing hardly bear this distinction: for according to it the contrary is more fitting, namely that the loaves, lest they dry up, be at once distributed equally to each; but that the raw fine flour be kept by the individual offerers for grinding.
Verse 12. And fine flour fried, and cakes.—“And” here is taken for “that is”: for fine flour tempered and kneaded when it is cooked, that is, as the Hebrew has it, fried in a pan, is a cake (collyris), or fried cake. So the Chaldee and Septuagint. Our interpreter calls it collyris, elsewhere crustula.
Verse 13. Also loaves of leavened bread—not that anything of them be brought to the altar: for this is forbidden in chapter 2, verse 11; but that they be offered to the priests as gifts on which they themselves may feed.
With the sacrifice of thanksgiving, which is offered for peace-offerings.—The Hebrew: With the victim of the thanksgiving of his peace-offerings, that is, with the victim which is immolated in thanksgiving for peace, that is, welfare and benefits obtained from God. For the peace-victim was twofold: one for peace, that is welfare, to be obtained, the other for it obtained, which accordingly is called todah, that is, confession, praise, thanksgiving: whence the Greeks render thysia aineseos, that is, a sacrifice of praise, by which God and the majesty and beneficence of God are praised and celebrated: either of these again was voluntary or votive.
Verse 14. Of which (of the leavened loaves) one shall be offered to the Lord for firstfruits—that is, to fall not to God in sacrifice, but to the priest, who takes the place of God, for food. The other loaves, through this one first, were also reckoned offered to the Lord.
Verse 16. If any man by vow, or of his own accord, offer a sacrifice, it shall be eaten in like manner the same day.—The first cause of which law was that nothing of the sacred food might be corrupted, lest, if this flesh became rancid or putrid, the religion of the victims should grow cheap. The second, because sacred food is not to be thrust into the store-room, but to be set before all the needy, says Philo and Theodoret, Question 7.
But why had the victim offered in thanksgiving to be eaten the same day, while that offered by vow or of one’s own accord could be eaten on the second day?
I answer, because the former, of thanksgiving, was worthier than the second, offered by vow or of one’s own accord, in this respect, that the latter was drawn out by the necessity of a vow or by the hope of obtaining some benefit; whereas the former burst forth from a grateful, generous, pious soul poured out in the praises of God.
The allegorical cause was that by various figures and observances the same thing might be signified, namely that on the same day of this life all the sacrifices of faith and good works are to be consummated and completed, and nothing is to be reserved for the third day of resurrection and eternity. For this is what is meant by what is said here: “Whatsoever shall be found on the third day, the fire shall burn it.” It is the same as the Wise Man warns, Ecclesiastes 9:10, saying: “Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly: for neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge shall be in hell, whither thou art hastening.” So Procopius, Bede, Radulphus, Origen. For sometimes all time and all duration is divided into two days, one of the present life, the other of the future: sometimes into three, by allusion to the passion and resurrection of Christ, so that there are two days of the present life, and the third day is of eternity and resurrection. Again Origen and Bede understand by the two days the two Testaments, the new and the old, namely the time of the Mosaic law and of the Gospel, and by the third day they understand eternity.
Verse 18. If any man eat of the flesh of the victim of peace-offerings on the third day, the oblation shall be of no effect—as if to say: By this latter transgression of this law, in which he keeps the sacred flesh to the third day, he will lose the grace which by the former sacrifice and peace-victim he merited with me. Hence the Hebrew has: The offerer shall not be pleasing to me.
Verse 19. The flesh that hath touched any unclean thing shall not be eaten, but shall be burnt with fire.—“The flesh,” namely that offered to God, which after immolation is in any way polluted, shall not be eaten but burnt, and that out of reverence for the sacrifices, with fire not sacred but profane, because it is no longer the flesh of a victim and sacrifice, since it is rejected by it for its uncleanness. I say flesh offered to God; for other flesh not sacred, even if it had touched something unclean, it was lawful to eat, as is plain from Deuteronomy 14:21, 22. I say after immolation; for if before it, when it was being carried to the altar, the flesh of the victim had been polluted, it was indeed not lawful to offer and immolate it; yet it could itself be turned to any profane uses.
He that is clean shall eat of it—not of the unclean flesh just mentioned: for this was commanded to be burnt, but of the peace-victim, namely if it is not polluted, but clean and such as it was offered; for of the peace-victim he has treated from verse 11 up to here.