Leviticus 27:29

(29) None devoted, which shall be devoted of men.—Better, Every one banned, which shall be banned of men, that is, every one banned from amongst men, or every human being banned, is not to be redeemed. Like the cattle and the patrimonial estates, when once devoted to God by a vow of banning, the man thus banned by a vow comes irretrievably under the class of “most holy unto the Lord,” or one irrevocably withdrawn from the power of man.

But shall surely be put to death.—Not as a sacrifice to God, but, on the contrary, to be removed out of His sight. This is the apparent import of the passage, and seems to be confirmed by the melancholy narrative of Jephtha and his daughter (Jdg_11:30). This seems to have been the interpretation put on the law in question during the second Temple, since it is embodied in the Chaldee Versions, which render the verse as follows: “Every vow that shall be vowed of man, shall not be redeemed with money, but with burnt offerings and with hallowed victims, and with supplications for mercy before the Lord, because such are to be put to death.” It is, however, supposed that this Awful vow of banning could only be exercised on notorious malefactors and idolaters as dangerous to the faith of the Israelites, that it could not be made by any private individual on his own responsibility, and that when such cases occurred the community or the Sanhedrin carried out the ban as an act of judicial necessity, thus showing it to be “most holy unto the Lord.” Accordingly, Lev_27:28-29 treat of two different cases. The former regulates objects “banned unto the Lord,” which differs from the vow of dedication discussed in Lev_27:2-8 only in so far that it is unredeemable, whilst Lev_27:29 regulates the banning enacted by the law itself (Exo_22:19), or pronounced by the court of justice on a man who is irretrievably to be put to death.

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

Lev 27:29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; [but] shall surely be put to death.

Ver. 29. None devoted,] sc., To destruction: as were the Amalekites; {1Sa 15:3} Canaanites; {Num 21:2} Jerichuntines. {Jos 6:17}

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.

Of men, not by men, as some would elude it; but of men, for it is manifest both from this and the foregoing verses, that men here are not the persons devoting, but devoted.

Quest. Was it then lawful for any man or men thus to devote another person to the Lord, and in pursuance of such vow to put him to death?

Answ. This was unquestionably lawful, and a duty in some cases, when persons have been devoted to destruction either by God’s sentence, as idolaters, Exo 22:20; Deu 13:15, the Canaanites, Deu 20:17, the Amalekites, Deu 25:19; 1Sa 15:3,26, Benhadad, 1Ki 20:42; or by men, in pursuance of such a sentence of God, as Num 21:2,3; 31:17; or for any crime of a high nature, as Jdg 21:5; Jos 7:15. But this is not to be generally understood, as some have taken it, as if a Jew might by virtue of this text devote his child or his servant to the Lord, and thereby oblige himself to put them to death, which peradventure was Jephthah’s error. For this is expressly limited to all that a man hath, or which is his, i.e. which he hath a power over. But the Jews had no power over the lives of their children or servants, but were directly forbidden to take them away, by that great command, Thou shalt do no murder. And seeing he that killed his servant casually by a blow with a rod was surely to be punished, as is said Exo 21:20, it could not be lawful wilfully and intentionally to take away his life upon pretence of any such vow as this. But for the Canaanites, Amalekites, &c., God, the undoubted Lord of all men’s lives, gave to the Israelites a power over their persons and lives, and a command to put them to death. And this verse may have a special respect to them, or such as them. And although the general subject of this and the former verse be one and the same, yet there are two remarkable differences to this purpose:

1. The verb is active Lev 27:28, and the agent there expressed, that a man shall devote; but it is passive Lev 27:29, and the agent undetermined, which shall be devoted, to wit, by God, or men in conformity to God’s revealed will.

2. The devoted person or thing is only to be sold or redeemed, and said to be most holy, Lev 27:28; but here it is to be put to death, and this belongs only to men, and those such as either were or should be devoted in manner now expressed.

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

Lev 27:29. Devoted of men — Not by men, as some would elude it, but of men, for it is manifest both from this and the foregoing verses, that men are here not the persons devoting, but devoted to destruction, either by God’s sentence, as idolaters, Exo 22:20; Deu 23:15; the Canaanites, Deu 20:17; the Amalekites, Lev 25:19; 1Sa 15:3; 1Sa 15:26; Benhadad, 1Ki 20:42; or by men, in pursuance of such a sentence of God, as Num 21:2-3; Num 31:17; or for any crime of a high nature, as Jdg 21:5. But this is certainly not to be understood, as some have taken it, as if a Jew might, by virtue of this text, devote his child or his servant to the Lord, and thereby oblige himself to put them to death. For this is expressly limited to all that a man hath or which is his; that is, which he hath a power over. But the Jews had no power over the lives of their children or servants, but were directly forbidden to take them away, by that great command, thou shalt do no murder. And seeing he that killed his servant casually by a blow with a rod was surely to be punished, as is said, Exo 21:20, it could not be lawful wilfully to take away his life upon pretence of any such vow as this. But for the Canaanites, Amalekites, &c., God, the undoubted Lord of all men’s lives, gave to the Israelites a power over their persons and lives, and a command to put them to death. And this verse may have a special respect to them, or such as them.

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

27:29 set apart for destruction (Hebrew kherem): The context here is the war for the conquest of Canaan, when cities, animals, and people deemed holy to some other god were set apart to be destroyed.

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

It shall remain without redemption.

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

shall surely be put to death--This announcement imported not that the person was to be sacrificed or doomed to a violent death; but only that he should remain till death unalterably in the devoted condition. The preceding regulations were evidently designed to prevent rashness in vowing (Ecc 5:4) and to encourage serious and considerate reflection in all matters between God and the soul (Luk 21:4).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 29. Which shall be devoted of men] Every man who is devoted shall surely be put to death; or, as some understand it, be the Lord's property, or be employed in his service, till death. The law mentioned in these two verses has been appealed to by the enemies of Divine revelation as a proof, that under the Mosaic dispensation human sacrifices were offered to God; but this can never be conceded. Had there been such a law, it certainly would have been more explicitly revealed, and not left in the compass of a few words only, where the meaning is very difficult to be ascertained; and the words themselves differently translated by most interpreters. That there were persons, devoted to destruction under the Mosaic dispensation, is sufficiently evident, for the whole Canaanitish nations were thus devoted by the Supreme Being himself, because the cup of their iniquity was full; but that they were not sacrificed to God, the whole history sufficiently declares. Houbigant understands the passage as speaking of these alone; and says, Non alios licebat anathemate voveri, quam Chananaeos, quos jusserat Deus ad internecionem deleri. "It was not lawful to devote any persons to death but the Canaanites, whom God had commanded to be entirely extirpated." This is perfectly correct; but he might have added that it was because they were the most impure idolaters, and because the cup of their iniquity was full. These God commanded to be put to death; and who can doubt his right to do so, who is the Maker of man, and the Fountain of justice? But what has this to do with human sacrifices? Just nothing. No more than the execution of an ordinary criminal, or a traitor, in the common course of justice, has to do with a sacrifice to God. In the destruction of such idolaters, no religious formality whatever was observed; nor any thing that could give the transaction even the most distant semblance of a sacrifice. In this way Jericho was commanded to be destroyed, Jos 6:17, and the Amalekites, De 25:19; 1Sa 15:3: but in all these cases the people commanded to be destroyed were such sinners as God's justice did not think proper to spare longer. And has not every system of law the same power? And do we not concede such power to the civil magistrate, for the welfare of the state? God, who is the sovereign arbiter of life and death, acts here in his juridical and legislative capacity; but these are victims to justice, not religious sacrifices.

It may be necessary just farther to note that two kinds of vows are mentioned in this chapter: -

1. The נדר neder, (See Clarke on Le 27:2,) which comprehends all those things which, when once devoted, might be redeemed at a certain price, according to the valuation of the priest.

2. The חרם cherem, those things vowed to God of which there remained no power of redemption; they were most holy, i. e., so absolutely devoted to God that they could neither be changed, alienated, nor redeemed: probably because no mental reservation had been made, as in the above case may be supposed. On this ground the word was afterward applied to the most solemn and awful kind of excommunication, meaning a person so entirely devoted to the stroke of vindictive justice, as never to be capable of receiving pardon; and hence the word may be well applied in this sense to the Canaanites, the cup of whose iniquity was full, and who were consigned, without reprieve, to final extermination.

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

And all the tithe of the land,.... Of which there were various sorts, the first tithe, the tithe out of the tithe, the second tithe, and the poor's tithe, which are generally reduced to three,"The first tenth part of all increase I gave to the sons of Aaron, who ministered at Jerusalem: another tenth part I sold away, and went, and spent it every year at Jerusalem:'' (Tobit 1:7)so Maimonides (p) says,"after they had separated the first tithe every year, they separate the second tithe, as it is said Deu 14:22; and in the third year, and in the sixth, they separate the poor's tithe, instead of the second tithe:''so that, properly speaking, there were but two tithes, though commonly reckoned three; the tithes of all eatables were given to the Levites every year, and a tenth part of that given by the Levites to the priests, and the second tithe was eaten by the owners; instead of which, according to the above writer, in the third and sixth years it was given to the poor, and called theirs; of this second tithe, Jarchi interprets this law, and so does Maimonides (q):

whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's: is to be given to him as an acknowledgment of his being the proprietor of the land, and that all the increase of it is owing to his blessing, and therefore is given in way of gratitude to him: the former of these takes in all sorts of corn that is man's food, as wheat and barley; and the latter wine and oil, and all sorts of fruits that are eatable; for it is said to be a general rule, that whatever is for food, and is preserved (having an owner, and not being common), and grows up out of the earth, is bound to tithes (r):

it is holy unto the Lord; the first tithe was eaten by the priests and Levites only, and the other before the Lord in Jerusalem only, and that by clean persons. Something of this kind obtained among the Heathens, it may be in imitation of this, particularly among the Grecians; Pisistratus (s) tells Solon, that everyone of the Athenians gave a tenth part of his inheritance, not to me, says he, who was their governor, but for public sacrifices, and the common good, and when engaged in war, to defray the charge of it; and so, by the oracle of Apollo, the Corcyraenans were directed to send to Olympia and Delphos the tenth part of the produce of their fields (t); and by the same oracle, the island of the Syphnians, in which was a golden mine, were ordered to bring the tenth of it to the same place (u). So the Pelasgi (w) in a time of scarcity vowed the tithes of all their increase to the gods, and having obtained their wish, devoted the tenth of all their fruits and cattle to them.

(p) Hilchot Maaser Sheni, c. 1. sect. 1. (q) Hilchot Maaser, c. 1. sect. 2. (r) Misn. Masserot, c. 1. sect. 1. (s) In Laert. Vit. Solon. p. 36. (t) Pausan. Phocica, sive, l. 10. p. 624. (u) Ibid. p. 628. (w) Dionys. Halicarnass. apud Euseb. Evangel. Praepar. l. 4. p. 159.

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

Die. Grotius says, only public enemies and deserters could be thus devoted. Other men and women were only consecrated for ever to the divine service. (Du Hamel)

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).

29. Shall surely be put to death — Doubtless meaning that the person so devoted should remain till death in the condition in which his devotement placed him.

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

Devoted of men - Not by men, as some would elude It; but of men, for it is manifest both from this and the foregoing verses, that men are here not the persons devoting, but devoted to destruction, either by God's sentence, as idolaters, Exod. xxii, 20 Deut. xxiii, 15, the Canaanites, Deut. xx, 17, the Amalekites, Deut. xxv, 19, and 1 Sam. xv, 3, 26, Benhaded, 1 Kings xx, 42, or by men, in pursuance of such a sentence of God, as Num. xxi, 2, 3; xxxi, 17, or for any crime of an high nature, as Jude xxi, 5 Josh. xvii, 15. But this is not to be generally understood, as some have taken it, as if a Jew might by virtue of this Text, devote his child or his servant to the Lord, and thereby oblige himself to put them to death. For this is expressly limited to all that a man hath, or which is his, that is, which he hath a power over. But the Jews had no power over the lives of their children or servants, but were directly forbidden to take them away, by that great command, thou shalt do no murder. And seeing he that killed his servant casually by a blow with a rod was surely to be punished, as is said, Exod. xxi, 20, it could not be lawful wilfully to take away his life upon pretense of any such vow as this. But for the Canaanites, Amalekites, &c. God the undoubted Lord of all men's lives, gave to the Israelites a power over their persons and lives, and a command to put them to death. And this verse may have a special respect to them or such as them.

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

'כל חרם אשר יחרם וגו‎ NONE DOOMED WHO SHALL BE DOOMED OF MAN, [SHALL BE RELEASED] — This means, if a person is going to be executed and someone says, “I take upon myself to pay his ערך” he has said nothing (his vow is of none effect) (Arakhin 6b).

מות יומת, you see, he is going to be put to death, and he therefore cannot be redeemed, — he has neither a market-value (דמים) nor an ‎ערך.‎

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.

NONE DOOMED WHO SHALL BE DOOMED OF MAN, SHALL BE REDEEMED. “[This means that] if a person is about to be executed [by the court], and someone else says, ‘I take upon myself to pay his valuation [to the Temple treasury],’ his vow is of no effect.” HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. “For you see he is going to die. Therefore he is not to be redeemed; he has neither a market-price nor a fixed valuation” [as fixed by the Torah on the basis of his age]. This is Rashi’s language. But our Rabbis have differed on this matter, some saying that it constitutes an admonition in connection with those who are liable to the death-penalty, that one must not take a ransom from them in order to free them. It is possible that He mentions this admonition here in order to state that he [the condemned] cannot give money to [the Temple of] G-d as other devoted things [are given], and thereby go free of punishment.By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse is stating that whatever a man devotes of his belongings, whether man or animal or field of his possession, it is holy unto the Eternal, meaning that they become devoted things of the priests, and there is no redemption for them. But if he devotes people who are not his, such as those who go to war against their enemies and utter a vow, If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then will I utterly destroy their cities, then all the people found in them are to die. The reason for this is that the intention of those making such a vow is not that [the captives] be given to the priests, but rather that it be forbidden to derive any benefit from them, since their purpose is to utterly destroy the enemies. Thus we find in the case of the men of Jabesh-gilead who transgressed the oath of the assembly by not coming to Mitzpah [to take part in the battle against Gibeah for the outrage they had committed], that it is written, And the congregation sent thither ten thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them saying: ‘Go and smite the inhabitants with the edge of the sword’., 21:10. And common sense does not allow [us to say] that the whole congregation perpetrated such an evil deed, killing many people of Israel who were not guilty of death! And Phinehas was there, 20:28. and by word of his mouth the whole affair was done! I have further found in the Agadah, in the [Midrash] Yelamdeinu: 76. On “Yelamdeinu” see in Seder Bo (Vol. II, p. 131, Note 196). “We have been taught: Rabbi Akiba says, Cheirem (‘doomed to destruction’) is an oath, and an oath is cheirem. The men of Jabesh transgressed the cheirem, and thus they became liable to the death penalty.”Therefore I say that it was from this verse [before us] that they deduced this law — that if any king of Israel, or the Great Sanhedrin [of seventy-one judges] in the presence of all Israel, who have the authority to institute ordinances [for the good of the people], if they declare a certain city cheirem, to be warred on, and likewise if they declare a certain matter cheirem, he who violates it is liable to the death-penalty. This indeed was the guilt of the men of Jabesh-gilead [as mentioned above], and of Jonathan, to whom his father [Saul] had said, ‘G-d do so and more also, thou shalt surely die, Jonathan.’ Now on the basis of what legal authority did these people deserve death, if not because of this source [in Scripture]?And this was the mistake that Jephthah made with his daughter., and it was his daughter who came out to meet him first. For he thought that just as a cheirem [“doomed” object] of the chief of Israel is valid and takes effect to put [certain] people to death, and [also] anyone who transgresses it is liable to the death-penalty, so [Jephthah thought] that if he uttered a vow at a time of war, to make an offering of a certain person or persons, the vow is valid; but he did not know that a cheirem declared by the king and Sanhedrin is valid [only] regarding the destruction of rebels, or against one who transgresses their decrees and ordinances. But that a vow should take effect to make a burnt-offering of something not appropriate for G-d, [as Jephthah thought] — Heaven forbid! Therefore the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah that [Jephthah] was not even obliged to pay the price of her market-value to the Temple treasury [as his vow was totally invalid], and he was punished for her [innocent] blood!Now do not let yourself be misled by Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s empty words, when he says that the meaning of the expression and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering is “or I will offer it up,” as if to say: “if that which comes forth of the doors of my house be a man or woman, that person shall be holy to G-d, inasmuch as he will abstain from the ways of the world, to stand to minister in the Name of the Eternal in prayer and thanksgiving to G-d; but if it be something fit for an offering, I will make it a burnt-offering.” Accordingly [Ibn Ezra’s interpretation continues, since Jephthah’s daughter was the first to come out to meet her father], he built her a house outside the city where she resided in seclusion, and he provided her with sustenance all her days, and no man knew her, so that his daughter remained shut away [from the world all her life].All this are words of emptiness. For if he vowed that [whatsoever comes forth of the door of his house] shall be the Eternal’s, this does not mean that he should be a recluse [from the world], but instead he is to be like Samuel, of whom his mother said, and I shall give him unto the Eternal, and he was a servant in the House of G-d, not a recluse. And according to the ordinances of the Torah, no man can utter a vow which will bind the persons who come out of the door of his house to live thereafter in seclusion, just as he cannot bring them as an offering. And if the matter be so [as Ibn Ezra put it] then Jephthah’s daughter would be bewailing her virginity with her companions with her, like harlots enhancing their hire! Heaven forbid that this be a custom in Israel, to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year because she did not marry and she worshipped G-d in purity! Rather, this whole subject is to be understood in its plain meaning [that Jephthah actually brought her as an offering], and his mistake was as I have explained.And according to the opinion of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, it is possible that this verse [before us] includes many [different] subjects, similar to the verse, Ye shall not eat with the blood; and like the verse, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children which the Rabbis interpret as invalidating the testimony of relatives, and Scripture further states concerning it: But the children of the murderers he [King Amaziah of Judah] put not to death, according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as the Eternal commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers.’ Similarly this verse [before us] includes the law of one who vows to give to the Temple treasury the valuation of a person who is liable to the death-penalty [as explained above], the law of those against whom a cheirem is declared at a time of conquest, as we have said, and the law of one who transgresses the cheirem of the Great Court or of the king of Israel, as was the case in the incident of Saul [and Jonathan mentioned above]. It is with reference to that that it is said there, So the people rescued Jonathan, that he die not, for since the Torah states, he shall not be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death, it says there, So the people rescued Jonathan, that he die not; [meaning] that since a miracle happened through him [i.e., that the Philistines suffered a great defeat on that day], they knew that it was in error that Jonathan had acted [contrary to the cheirem of his father]. And this is the sense of the expression [of the people in speaking on behalf of Jonathan], who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel. And so likewise did Yonathan ben Uziel translate this expression: “For before the Eternal it is revealed that he [Jonathan] acted in error on that day, and so the people rescued Jonathan.”

Thus is completed the Book of the Law of the Priests [i.e., the Book of Leviticus], their offerings and their commandments.May G-d the Most High restore matters to their [former] condition, the Levites to their song, the priests to their ministry, and Israel to their mighty habitation.And may our eyes behold Jerusalem, the garden of the Palace; And the Palace upon its wonted place, The Temple and the Innermost Sanctuary upon their firm foundation, and the daughters of Judah in their security.Then will the offering of Judah be pleasant unto the Eternal as in the days of old, and as in their ancient years.And acceptable upon His altar will be the Daily Whole-offerings in their order and the Additional Offerings according to their law.

Finished and completed is the Book of Leviticus with the help of G-d.

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.