Leviticus 6:23

Lev 6:23 For every meat offering for the priest shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten.

Ver. 23. It shall not be eaten.] To teach the high priest to look for salvation out of himself.

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 6:23. It shall not be eaten — No part of it shall be eaten by the priest, as it was when the offering was for the people. The reason of the difference is, partly because when he offered it for the people, he was to have some recompense for his pains; partly to signify the imperfection of the Levitical priests, who could not bear their own iniquity; for the priest’s eating part of the people’s sacrifice did signify his typical bearing of the people’s iniquity; and partly to teach the priests and ministers of God, that it is their duty to serve God with singleness of heart, and to be content with God’s honour, though they have no present advantage by it.

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

6:23 Normally, the bulk of a grain offering would go to the officiating priest (2:9-10). However, the grain offering described in 6:19-23 was for a special occasion—the ordination of the priests—and therefore was to be burned up entirely and not eaten.

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

Verse 23. For every meat-offering for the priest shall be wholly burnt] Whatever the priest offered was wholly the Lord's, and therefore must be entirely consumed: the sacrifices of the common people were offered to the Lord, but the priests partook of them; and thus they who ministered at the altar were fed by the altar. Had the priests been permitted to live on their own offerings as they did on those of the people, it would have been as if they had offered nothing, as they would have taken again to themselves what they appeared to give unto the Lord. Theodoret says that this marked "the high perfection which God required in the ministers of his sanctuary," as his not eating of his own sin-offering supposes him to stand free from all sin; but a better reason is given by Mr. Ainsworth: "The people's meat-offering was eaten by the priests that made atonement for them, Le 6:15-16, Le 7:7; but because no priest, being a sinner, could make atonement for himself, therefore his meat-offering might not be eaten, but all burnt on the altar, to teach him to expect salvation, not by his legal service or works, but by Christ; for the eating of the sin-offering figured the bearing of the sinner's iniquity;" Le 10:17.

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

(23) For every meat offering for the priest.—Better, and every meat offering of a priest This rule applies to every meat offering brought by the priests themselves for the same reason.

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

And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... Continued his discourse with him:

saying; as follows.

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

Not be eaten - Compare Lev 6:30; Lev 4:12 note.

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

Sacrifice of flour, not of animals, Exodus xxix. 28.

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).

No part of it shall be eaten by the priest, as it was when the offering was for the people. The reason of the difference is, partly, because when he offered it for the people, he was to have some recompence for his pains, which he could not expect when he offered it for himself; partly, to signify the imperfection of the Levitical priests, who could not bear their own iniquity; for the priest’s eating part of the people’s sacrifices did signify his typical bearing of the people’s iniquity, as appears from Lev 10:17; and partly, to teach the priests and ministers of God, that it is their duty to serve God with singleness of heart, and to be content with God’s honour, though they have no present advantage by it.

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

23. Wholly burnt… not be eaten — Since it was a thank offering to Jehovah it would be improper for the priest to eat it. To appropriate it to himself after presenting it to the Lord would destroy the vital element of sacrifice, self-denial. This law applies to all offerings of the priest, especially to his sin offering, the eating of which would imply that he could atone for his own sins, and that he had no need of a substitute prefiguring “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” The sin offering for a private individual or for a prince was to be eaten by the priesthood. That for the whole nation, since the priests were included, could not be eaten.

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

It shall not be eaten - No part of it shall be eaten by the priest, as it was when the offering was for the people. The reason of the difference is, partly because when he offered it for the people, he was to have some recompence for his pains; partly to signify the imperfection of the Levitical priest, who could not bear their own iniquity; for the priest's eating part of the people's sacrifices did signify his typical bearing of the people's iniquity; and partly to teach the priests and ministers of God, that it is their duty to serve God with singleness of heart, and to be content with God's honour though they have no present advantage by it.

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

‎'וכל חטאת וגו‎ AND NO SIN OFFERING [WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING SHALL BE EATEN] — This means, that if the priest brought any of the blood of an “external” sin-offering (one the blood of which has to be sprinkled on the outer altar) into the Interior it becomes invalid and must be burnt.

וכל AND ALL — The word “all” serves to include in this law other sacrifices too (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 8 1; Zevachim 81b).

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.

AND EVERY SIN-OFFERING, WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING etc. “This means that if the priest brought any of the blood of ‘an outer sin-offering’ sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. into the interior of the Sanctuary it becomes invalidated, [and the offering may not be eaten, and must be burnt].” Thus the language of Rashi. According to this opinion, the phrase to atone in the holy place which Scripture says [in continuation], is not to be understood in its simple sense, since this blood does not [in fact] bring atonement, for it became invalidated as soon as it was brought into the Sanctuary, and it is on account of that very invalidation that it is to be burnt. Rather, the expression to atone means [according to Rashi] that if he brought it into the interior “with the intent to atone,” [namely] to sprinkle there of its blood as is done with the blood of “the inner sin-offerings,” sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. even though he has not [in fact] atoned with it, meaning that he has not sprinkled any of its blood, it is nonetheless invalidated from the moment of entry, and [the offering] is to be burnt. It is possible according to this that if he brought it in with the intent of not sprinkling thereof at all [in the Sanctuary], that the offering remains valid. According to the words of Rabbi Shimon, it only becomes invalidated if he “atoned” with the blood, meaning that he actually sprinkled thereof in the same manner as is done in the case of “the inner sin-offerings” [i.e., in front of the Veil and on the comers of the golden altar]. It is for this reason that Scripture states to atone — not [meaning] that he actually effected atonement, but that he brought of its blood to atone with it, and, according to his thinking, effected atonement. The meaning of the term “into the interior” [which Rashi mentioned above] is “into the Sanctuary.” The same [is also the meaning of the phrase] “if he brought into the ‘interior of the interior’ [i.e., the Holy of Holies]” of the bullock of the anointed priest, Verses 4-7. or that of “forgetting a matter of law,”, Verses 13-18. or of the goats brought for worshipping the idols, namely that if he brought their blood into a more interior place than that designated for them, [since in these cases of sin-offering the blood is to be brought into the Sanctuary proper to effect atonement], then the offerings become invalidated. Scripture states ‘of’ the blood in order to indicate that even bringing in part of the blood invalidates the offering. Thus if the priest received the blood in two cups, and brought only one of them into the interior, the offering is invalidated.By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, outer sin-offering whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the holy place, according to the priest’s intent which was not, however, in accordance with the law — since the blood of an outer sin-offering is to be sprinkled upon the outer altar — that offering shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire.” Ramban is now to suggest a totally different interpretation, namely, that the verse is not speaking of outer sin-offerings wrongly brought in, but establishes the principle that all “inner sin-offerings” [as enumerated in the text: “the bullock of the anointed priest etc.”] the blood of which is regularly brought into the interior, are not to be eaten by the priests, unlike that of “the outer sin-offerings,” whose meat is eaten by the priests (see Note 52 above). Ramban will conclude by saying that this is the interpretation of one of the Sages in the Torath Kohanim and Talmud. the verse speaks only with reference to “the inner sin-offerings,” concerning the burning of which He had already commanded, and here Scripture came to add a negative commandment against eating them, for this section is intended to complete the laws of sin-offerings. sin-offerings [which are eaten], Scripture wished to complete here all laws pertaining to all sin-offerings, and thus we may interpret Verse 23 as indeed referring to inner sin-offerings (see note 68 above). This is the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean in the Torath Kohanim 8:5. and in Tractate Zebachim.

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.