Leviticus 22:2

Lev 22:2 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name [in those things] which they hallow unto me: I [am] the LORD.

Ver. 2. That they separate.] Though priests, yet they may not hold themselves privileged above others to commit sin, but are the rather obliged to duty. Why should any Chrysostom have cause to say, Non arbitror inter sacerdotes multos esse qui salvi fiant, I do not think that many of our ministers can he saved, it is well if any? or any Campian to exclaim, Ministris eorum nihil vilias?

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 22:2. That they separate themselves — When any uncleanness is upon them, as appears from Lev 22:3-4. From the holy things — This is the first caution. No priest, or other person, was to presume to eat any part of a consecrated victim, while he was under any degree of legal uncleanness. Neither were they, in that state, to eat of the first-fruits, which were also consecrated to God, Num 18:12. But they might eat of the tithes, which were allowed for their constant maintenance. That they profane not what they — The children of Israel; hallow — It ill became the priests to profane or pollute what the people hallowed.

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

22:2-6 The priest’s portions of the sacred offerings were regarded as “most holy” (see 2:3) and were not to come into contact with anything unclean (11:1–15:33). Accordingly, any descendant of Aaron who was unclean was forbidden to eat this food.

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

Meaning, that the Priests abstain from eating, so long as they are polluted.

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

Verse 2. Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves] The same subject is continued in this chapter as in the preceding, with this addition, that besides the perfection of the priests, it was indispensably necessary that the sacrifices also should be perfect. In the service of God, according to the law, neither an imperfect offering nor an imperfect offerer could be admitted. What need then of a mediator between a holy God and sinful men! And can we expect that any of our services, however sincere and well-intentioned, can be accepted, unless offered on that living Altar that sanctifies the gift?

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(2) Separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel.—As parts of the sacrifices offered by the Israelites belonged to the priests, they are here warned that (see Lev_7:20-21) they are not to consider themselves absolutely entitled to them under all circumstances, and that there are times when they must abstain from them.

In those things which they hallow unto me.—That is, in their treatment of the sacrifices which the children of Israel have consecrated and offered to the Lord.

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

2. separate] not of course in the full sense of the word. What is meant is that whenever they are in a condition of ceremonial impurity they must be careful not to come into contact with holy things.

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.

Speak unto Aaron and to his sons,.... The priests; the children of Israel or the common people are not mentioned, as having no concern in the following laws about eating holy things:

that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel; both from offering their lawful sacrifices, which was the business of their office when pure, and chiefly from eating that part of them which was their due, and was allowed them; neither of these they were to do, particularly the latter, when they were in any uncleanness, as the following words show:

and that, they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me; which the children of Israel set apart and devoted to his service; which they would do, by eating their part of them when unclean, and thereby show little reverence to that holy name to which they were devoted; or which the priests themselves sanctified, by offering them to him; for Jarchi says, this takes in the holiness of the priests themselves; but the former seems best, and is confirmed in Lev 22:3,

I am the Lord; who is holy himself, and whose holy things these are, and will be sanctified by those that draw nigh unto him.

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

“Speak ... that they so abstain from touching the holy things (i. e. the sacrificial food of all kinds) of the children of Israel which they consecrate unto me, that they profane not my holy name.” This law related to the daily life and the ordinary food of the priests.

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

Offer. He does not speak of such things as fell to the share of the priests; (Menochius) but orders them to behave with great reverence when they perform their sacred offices, lest others should take occasion to treat the name of God and holy things with disrespect. Hebrew and Septuagint, "let them not profane my holy name, which they are bound to sanctify; or in what they consecrate to me." Such things must not be used for ordinary purposes. (St. Basil, ser. de Bapt. ii. 2, and 3.)

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 they separate themselves, to wit, when any uncleanness is upon them, as it appears from Lev 22:3,4. From the holy things, i.e. from eating of those parts of the offerings which belong to them. Only of the tithes they might eat in that case.

Which they hallow; either the children of Israel, or the priests; for both of them did in their kinds hallow, consecrate, or offer them to God. But the former seems more probable, both because they were mentioned here and Lev 22:3, where they are said to hallow, &c., and because this makes the argument stronger, it ill became the priests to profane or pollute what the people did hallow.

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

REVERENCE FOR HOLY THINGS, Lev_23:1-16.

2. Separate themselves — They were to abstain from treating the holy things, or offerings of the people, as things unconsecrated and common. By appropriating what was sacred to Jehovah, without the warrant of an express command, like that requiring them to eat the most holy things, (Lev_2:3, note,) they would profane his holy name, or degrade his majesty, and tarnish his purity in the eyes of the people.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Separate themselves - When any uncleanness is upon them, as appears from ver. 3, 4. From the holy things - From eating of those parts of the offerings, which belong to them. Only of the tithes they might eat. They - The children of Israel. And it ill became the priests to profane or pollute what the people did hallow.

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

וינזרו THAT THEY KEEP AWAY [FROM THE HOLY THINGS etc.] — The term נזר always denotes “keeping aloof". Similarly it is said (Ezekiel 14:7) "and he separates himself (וינזר) from following Me”; (Isaiah 1:4) "They are gone away (נזורו) backward”. The meaning of this verse therefore is: they (the priests) shall keep aloof from the holy things during the time of their uncleanness (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 1).

וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל אשר הם מקדשים לי. ולא יחללו את שם קדשי — Invert the words of the verse in the order here set forth and explain it accordingly.

אשר הם מקדשים לי WHICH THEY HALLOW UNTO ME — This is intended to include in the prohibition the holy things of the priests themselves (i. e. הם refers to אהרן ובניו not to ‎‎בני ישראל‎) (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 1).

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.

SPEAK UNTO AARON AND TO HIS SONS, THAT THEY SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND THAT THEY PROFANE NOT MY HOLY NAME, WHICH THEY HALLOW UNTO ME. “Transpose the verse. 2. and that they profane not My holy Name. 3. which they hallow unto Me. Now since the sense of the verse is that when the priests are in a state of impurity, they are to separate themselves from the holy things which the Israelites have hallowed to G-d’s Name, such as the offerings and the heave-offering, etc., then phrase 3 should follow phrase 1, since the word “they” (in phrase 3) refers back to “the children of Israel” at the end of phrase 1. In other words, since the word “they” in phrase 3 means “the children of Israel” mentioned in phrase 1, and the word “they” in phrase 2 definitely means “the priests,” why did Scripture place phrase 2 between phrases 1 and 3, which both refer to the children of Israel? Therefore Rashi, by way of interpretation, transposed the phrases to be read in this order: 1, 3, 2. This transposed order is followed in the J.P.S. translation. and interpret it thus: ‘that they [the priests when in a state of impurity] separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, which they [the children of Israel] hallow unto Me, and that they [the priests] profane not My holy Name.’ Which they hallow unto Me, this comes to include things hallowed by the priests themselves.” This is Rashi’s language.But if we explain which they hallow unto Me as referring to [the things] which the priests themselves hallow, then there is no need for this transposition! have hallowed, it was necessary to transpose the phrases, as explained above. But if, as Rashi now suggests, the verse speaks of two kinds of hallowed things — those hallowed by Israelites and those made holy by the priests — then the word “they” in phrase 3 (see Note 81) no longer refers back to “the children of Israel” in phrase 1, and there is no need to transpose the order of the phrases! Hence the last sentence in Rashi contradicts his previous explanation! Rather, [according to this final interpretation mentioned by Rashi, the whole verse can be explained in the order it is written without transposing the phrases, in the following way:] Scripture is stating: “that they [the priests] separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they [the priests] profane not by means of them [i.e., the holy things] My holy Name [through eating them in a state of impurity], and that which they [the priests themselves] hallow unto Me” [they should also not profane], meaning that they [the priests] should not profane the holy things which Aaron and his sons themselves hallow unto Me [and thus there is no need for transposing the verse.]! And in the Torath Kohanim it is interpreted as follows: 4:1. “That they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel. For the holy things of the children of Israel [the priests] are liable to punishment for [eating] pigul, means an offering which has been rendered unfit through certain improper intentions at the time it was slaughtered or offered, namely if the ministering person had in mind to eat it, or to burn upon the altar the parts that must be burnt, after the expiration of the prescribed time” (“The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 121). See there for the whole commandment about the prohibition of eating pigul. nothar, is meat of offerings which is left over beyond the time assigned for its consumption. See ibid., pp. 119-120, about this prohibition of eating nothar. or when in a state of impurity, but they are not liable for [eating] pigul, nothar, or when in a state of impurity if they are holy things of non-Jews. The holy things of the children of Israel. From this I would only know that [the priests when in a state of impurity are not to eat of] the holy things of the children of Israel. How do I know [that this prohibition applies also to] the holy things which they themselves have hallowed? From the expression, which they hallow unto Me, which includes all of them” [even those of the priests themselves]. But there [in the Torath Kohanim] no mention is made at all of a transposition of the verse [as Rashi said]! And by the way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], which they hallow unto Me, I am the Eternal means that the priests are not to profane the Name which is hallowed to Him, since His Name is upon the Sanctuary of the Eternal [and therefore they should not cause My Presence to depart therefrom when they profane the holy things]. I have already alluded to this in the section of ‘V’yikchu Li Terumah’ (And they take for Me an offering).

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.