Leviticus 17:3

(3) That killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat.—The law which is thus solemnly laid down is that when one of the three kinds of the sacrificial quadrupeds (see Lev_7:23) are intended for private use, they must not be slaughtered within or outside the camp. That the injunction here refers to the domestic animals in question, and not to the ordinary sacrifices, is not only evident from the expression “killeth,” instead of “sacrificeth,” but more especially from a comparison of Lev_17:3-4 with Lev_17:8-9.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Lev 17:3 What man soever [there be] of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth [it] out of the camp,

Ver. 3. What man soever.] Whether Israelite or proselyte, {Lev 17:8} unless by special dispensation from the lawgiver, as 1Sa 7:9; 1Sa 11:15 2Sa 24:18 1Ki 18:22; and then they were to offer upon altars of earth, or rough stone, that might be soon and easily thrown down. {Exo 20:24-25}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Lev 17:3. That killeth — Not for common use, for such beasts might be killed by any person or in any place, (Deu 12:5-14; Deu 12:26-27,) but for sacrifice, as the sense is limited, Lev 17:5, where the reason of the injunction is given. It is true, some suppose that the Israelites were forbidden by this law, while they were in the wilderness, to kill, even for food, any of the animals that were wont to be sacrificed, elsewhere than in the door of the tabernacle, where the blood and the fat were to be offered to God upon the altar, and the flesh returned to the offerer to be eaten as a peace-offering according to the law. And the statute is so worded in Lev 17:3-4, as to favour this opinion. The learned Dr. Cudworth understands if in this sense, and thinks that while they had their tabernacle so near them, in the midst of their camp, they ate no flesh but what had first been offered to God; but that when they were about to enter Canaan, this constitution was altered, and they were allowed to kill their beasts of the flock and herd at home, as well as the roe-buck and the hart, (Deu 12:21,) only that thrice a year they were to see God at his tabernacle, and to eat and drink before him. It is indeed probable, that in the wilderness they did not eat much flesh but that of their peace- offerings, preserving what cattle they had for breed, against they came to Canaan. And yet it is hard to construe into a mere temporary law, what is expressly said to be a statute for ever, Lev 17:7. And, therefore, it seems rather to forbid only the killing beasts for sacrifice anywhere but at God’s altar. They must not offer a sacrifice as they had done in the open field, (Lev 17:5,) no, not to the true God; but their sacrifices must be brought to the priest, to be offered on the altar of the Lord. And the mighty solemnity they had lately seen of consecrating both the priests and the altar, would serve for a good reason why they should confine themselves to both these which God had so signally appointed and owned.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17:3-9 These regulations (see also Deut 12:15-21) indicate that unsupervised sacrifice could easily lead to the integration of pagan elements into the true worship of the Lord (Lev 17:7). Israel was camped around the Tabernacle (Num 2:2-34), so it was not inconvenient to bring an animal to the sanctuary for slaughter. Deuteronomy 12:20-24 anticipates Israel’s settlement in the land and the hardship imposed by this regulation. It permitted slaughtering and eating meat without bringing it to the sanctuary, as long as the blood was not consumed.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

To make a sacrifice of offering thereof.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

3. killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat] The animals mentioned are those which are suitable for sacrifice, ‘of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord’ (Lev_7:25), and the verb, though used of sacrificial slaughter (Lev_1:5, Lev_9:8, etc.), also has the sense of ordinary killing for food. This is its meaning here. The act of killing a beast included in the category of those admissible for sacrifice must be accompanied by certain other religious rites, viz. (1) bringing it before the Lord, (2) bringing it to one special place.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What man soever there be of the house of Israel,.... Whether high or low, rich or poor:

that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat in the camp; which are particularly mentioned, as Gersom observes, because of these the offerings were; for the law respects the killing of them not for common food, but for sacrifice, as appears from the following verses; for this law was to be a statute for ever, whereas in that sense it was not, and could not be observed, especially when they were come into the land of Canaan; nor would it have been decent or convenient to have brought such vast numbers of cattle every day to be killed at the door of the tabernacle, and must have made the service of the priests extremely laborious to kill them, or even to see that they were killed aright:

or that killeth it out of the camp; which furnishes out another reason against the same notion, since it was not usual to kill for common food without the camp, but in their own tents within it; whereas to sacrifice without the camp was commonly done.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Every domesticated animal that was slain for food was a sort of peace-offering Lev 17:5. This law could only be kept as long as the children of Israel dwelt in their camp in the wilderness. The restriction was removed before they settled in the holy land, where their numbers and diffusion over the country would have rendered its strict observance impossible. See Deu 12:15-16, Deu 12:20-24.

Lev 17:4

Blood shall be imputed unto that man - i. e. he has incurred guilt in shedding blood in an unlawful manner.

Cut off - See Exo 31:14 note.

Lev 17:5

Rather, May bring their beasts for slaughter, which they (now) slaughter in the open field. even that they may bring them before Yahweh to the entrance of the tent of meeting unto the priests, and slaughter them as peace-offerings to Yahweh.

Lev 17:7

Devils - The word in the original is the “shaggy goat” of Lev 4:23. But it is sometimes employed, as here, to denote an object of pagan worship or a demon dwelling in the deserts 2Ch 11:15; Isa 13:21; Isa 34:14. The worship of the goat, accompanied by the foulest rites, prevailed in Lower Egypt; and the Israelites may have been led into this snare while they dwelt in Egypt.

This law for the slaughtering of animals was not merely to exclude idolatry from the chosen nation. It had a more positive and permanent purpose. It bore witness to the sanctity of life: it served to remind the people of the solemnity of the grant of the lives of all inferior creatures made to Noah Gen 9:2-3; it purged and directed toward Yahweh the feelings in respect to animal food which seem to be common to man’s nature; and it connected a habit of thanksgiving with the maintenance of our human life by means of daily food. 1Ti 4:3-5. Having acknowledged that the animal belonged to Yahweh the devout Hebrew received back its flesh as Yahweh’s gift.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

If he kill, &c. That is, in order to sacrifice. The law of God forbids sacrifices to be offered in any other place but at the tabernacle or temple of the Lord: to signify that no sacrifice would be acceptable to God, out of his true temple, the one, holy, Catholic Apostolic Church. (Challoner) --- On other occasions, many believe that the blood of oxen, sheep, and goats, was to be poured out in honour of God by the priest, who received a part of each. (Deuteronomy xviii. 3; xii. 15, 22.; Theodoret, q. 23.) Perhaps this law regards the time when the Hebrews sojourned in the desert; and that of Deuteronomy has a reference to those times when they should obtain possession of Chanaan. (Calmet) --- We read of some private people like Manue and Elias, who offered sacrifice at a distance from the tabernacle. But this was done by a particular inspiration of God, who dispensed with his own law. (St. Augustine, q. 56.; 3 Kings xviii. 23; Judges xiii. 19.) (Menochius) See Josue viii. 31.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

That killeth, not for common use or eating, for such beasts might be killed by any person or in any place, but for sacrifice, as manifestly appears both from Lev 17:4, where that is expressed, and from the reason of this law, which is peculiar to sacrifices, Lev 17:5, and from Deu 12:5,15,21. in the camp, or out of the camp: in Canaan, the city answered to the camp, and so it forbids any man doing this either in the city or in the country.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat. The use of the word killeth, instead of sacrificeth, is one of the chief causes of the error referred to above, which represents this command as applying to the slaughter of domestic animals. But it is always permissible to use a generic in place of a specific term, and its use proves nothing.

Probably the sacred writer uses it as a less sacred term, and therefore more suitable to sacrifices offered to the spirits of the fields and woods. If ordinary slaughtering were meant, there is no reason why pigeons and turtle-doves should not be added to the ox, or lamb, or goat. That every ox, or lamb, or goat, to be killed in the camp, or... out of the camp, for the food of more than 600, 000 men, should be brought to so confined a space as the court of the tabernacle for slaughter, where the animals for the daily, weekly, annual, and innumerable private sacrifices were also killed, appears almost credible in itself. How would the drivers have made their way into it? and what would have soon been the state of the court? It is true that animal food was not the staple sustenance of the Israelites in the wilderness; but not unfrequently, after a successful war or raid, there must have been a vast number of cattle killed for feasting or reserved for subsequent eating.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That killeth-Not for common use, for such beasts might be killed by any person or in any place but for sacrifice. In the camp, or out of the camp - That is, anywhere.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Whoever of the house of Israel slaughtered an ox, sheep, or goat, either within or outside the camp, without bringing the animal to the tabernacle, to offer a sacrifice therefrom to the Lord, "blood was to be reckoned to him;" that is to say, as the following expression, "he hath shed blood," shows, such slaughtering was to be reckoned as the shedding of blood, or blood-guiltiness, and punished with extermination (see Gen 17:14). The severity of this prohibition required some explanation, and this is given in the reason assigned in Lev 17:5-7, viz., "that the Israelites may bring their slain-offerings, which they slay in the open field, before the door of the tabernacle, as peace-offerings to Jehovah," and "no more offer their sacrifices to the שׂעירים, after whom they go a whoring" (Lev 17:7). This reason presupposes that the custom of dedicating the slain animals as sacrifices to some deity, to which a portion of them was offered, was then widely spread among the Israelites. It had probably been adopted from the Egyptians; though this is not expressly stated by ancient writers: Herodotus (i. 132) and Strabo (xv. 732) simply mentioning it as a Persian custom, whilst the law book of Manu ascribes it to the Indians. To root out this idolatrous custom from among the Israelites, they were commanded to slay every animal before the tabernacle, as a sacrificial gift to Jehovah, and to bring the slain-offerings, which they would have slain in the open field, to the priest at the tabernacle, as shelamim (praise-offerings and thank-offerings), that he might sprinkle the blood upon the altar, and burn the fat as a sweet-smelling savour for Jehovah (see Lev 3:2-5). "The face of the field" (Lev 17:5, as in Lev 14:7, Lev 14:53): the open field, in distinction from the enclosed space of the court of Jehovah's dwelling. "The altar of Jehovah" is spoken of in Lev 17:6 instead of "the altar" only (Lev 1:5; Lev 11:15, etc.), on account of the contrast drawn between it and the altars upon which they offered sacrifice to Seirim. שׂעירים, literally goats, is here used to signify daemones (Vulg.), "field-devils" (Luther), demons, like the שׂדים in Deu 32:17, who were supposed to inhabit the desert (Isa 13:21; Isa 34:14), and whose pernicious influence they sought to avert by sacrifices. The Israelites had brought this superstition, and the idolatry to which it gave rise, from Egypt. The Seirim were the gods whom the Israelites worshipped and went a whoring after in Egypt (Jos 24:14; Eze 20:7; Eze 23:3, Eze 23:8, Eze 23:19, Eze 23:21, Eze 23:27). Both the thing and the name were derived from the Egyptians, who worshipped goats as gods (Josephus c. Ap. 2, 7), particularly Pan, who was represented in the form of a goat, a personification of the male and fertilizing principle in nature, whom they called Mendes and reckoned among the eight leading gods, and to whom they had built a splendid and celebrated temple in Thmuis, the capital of the Mendesian Nomos in Lower Egypt, and erected statues in the temples in all directions (cf. Herod. 2, 42, 46; Strabo, xvii. 802; Diod. Sic. i. 18). The expression "a statute for ever" refers to the principle of the law, that sacrifices were to be offered to Jehovah alone, and not to the law that every animal was to be slain before the tabernacle, which was afterwards repealed by Moses, when they were about to enter Canaan, where it could no longer be carried out (Deu 12:15).

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

ישחט שור או כשב‎ ‎‎‏ אשר [WHAT MAN SOEVER] THAT SLAUGHTERETH AN OX, OR A LAMB — Scripture is speaking here of consecrated animals since it says (v. 4) "and bringeth it not unto the appointed tent to offer an offering" (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 6 3; Zevachim 106a).

במחנה [WHAT MAN SOEVER SLAUGHTERETH …] IN THE CAMP — i. e. outside the forecourt (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 6 5; Zevachim 107b).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.