Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 22:22
Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the LORD.
22. The definitions of what constitutes a blemish may be compared with those of Lev 21:18 ff. ‘Broken ‘here is from the same root as that so rendered in Lev 21:19; ‘maimed’ is lit. cut, mutilated; ‘a wen’ means a running sore, or ulcer.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Compare Lev 21:19; Deu 15:21.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Blind, or broken, or maimed,…. Which is “blind” of one eye, or both: and so the Egyptians, as they would not sacrifice any of their oxen that had any blemishes on them, and were of a different colour, or changed in their form, so likewise such that were deprived of either of their eyes x. Some, as Aben Ezra observes, restrain that which is “broken” to its being broken in the head; but others interpret it of any fracture of the foot, as well as the head, and even of the tail, side, or rib; though others think, that such fractures as were not open and visible are excepted, as that of the rib; so Gersom; and with the Heathens, as Pliny y would have remarked, as they were not used to sacrifice calves, brought on men’s shoulders, so neither anything that halted: that which is maimed some understand of that whose foot is broken, as Aben Ezra also remarks; but the word is by the Septuagint rendered, “cut in the tongue”; and the Targum of Jonathan, “whose eyebrows are smitten”; and Jarchi seems to take in both, interpreting it the eyebrow which is cut or broken, and so the lip, which is cut or broken: but it is rather to be understood more generally of its being maimed or mutilated in any part of it; so with the Heathens, as Porphyry z affirms, beasts that were mutilated were not to be sacrificed; and in the Comedian a, a sacrifice is objected to, because it had no tail; upon which the Scholiast observes, that whatever was mutilated was not offered in sacred services, nor was any thing imperfect or unsound sacrificed to the gods; and particularly Servius b remarks, if their tongues were cut or slit; which illustrates the Septuagint version, which is observed by Grotius:
or having a wen: or full of warts, as others; the Targum of Jonathan is, whose eyes are smitten with a mixture of white and black; and so Gersom interprets it of a like defect in the eye, in the white of the eye; for he says, if it was in the black or pupil of the eye, the eye would be blind:
or scurvy or scabbed: the same of those in men;
[See comments on Le 21:20]:
ye shall not offer these unto the Lord; any creatures defective in any of these instances; three times this is said, as Jarchi observes, to make them careful concerning the sanctification of them, and concerning the slaying of them, and concerning the sprinkling of their blood:
nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the Lord; a burnt offering on the altar of burnt offering, or burn the fat of them upon it.
x Chaeremon. apud Porphyr. de Abstinentia, l. 4. sect. 7. y Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 45. z De Abstinentia, l. 2. sect. 23. a Aristoph. Acharnens. ver. 784. b In Virgil. Aeneid. l. 6.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
22. Either a bullock, or a lamb, that hath anything superfluous. An exception is here stated as to free-will-offerings; for in them God does not refuse a diminutive animal, or one which has a member either contracted, or of excessive size. And doubtless a greater license ought to be given, when a person is not under the obligation either of a vow or any other necessity. Still we must remember that no victim is acceptable to God, which labors under any notable defect.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(22) Blind.Whether totally blind or only of one eye. This blemish also disqualified the priest for the service at the altar (see Lev. 21:18).
Or broken.Better, broken-limbed (see Exo. 22:9), extending to the head, ribs, &c.
Or maimed.This was regarded in the time of the second Temple to describe a blemish in the eyebrow. Hence the Chaldee version translates it one whose eye-brows are fallen off. It would thus correspond to the defect which unfitted the priest for ministering at the altar.
Or having a wen.According to the Jewish canonists this denotes a disease of the eyes. Hence the Chaldee version translates it one whose eyes are smitten with a mixture of white and black, thus corresponding to the blemish which unfits the priest mentioned in Lev. 21:19.
Or scurvy or scabbed.These are exactly the same two defects specified with regard to the priests (see Lev. 21:20).
Ye shall not offer these unto the Lord.Though he must not offer animals with such blemishes, and though the man who vowed them for the sanctuary was beaten with stripes, yet the animals thus sanctified were no more his, he had to redeem them according to valuation, and with the money purchase another oblation.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
22. Having a wen Ulcerous, having an abscess or issue.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
offering. Hebrew. ‘ishsheh. App-43.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Blind: Lev 22:20, Lev 21:18-21, Mal 1:8
an offering: Lev 1:9, Lev 1:13, Lev 3:3, Lev 3:5
Reciprocal: Deu 23:1 – wounded