Leviticus 6:3

Lev 6:3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:

Ver. 3. And lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely.] Through inordinate love of money, that "root of all evil"; {a} but such money shall perish with them. {Zec 5:3}

{a} Quid non mortalia pectora cogit auri sacra fames? ηη φιλοχρηματιη μητηρ κακοτητος απασης.

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 6:3. Sweareth falsely — His oath being required, seeing there was no other way of discovery left. And is guilty — Makes his guilt manifest by his voluntary confession upon remorse; whereby he reapeth this benefit, that he only restores the principal with the addition of a fifth part; whereas, if he were convicted of his fault, he was to pay in some cases five-fold, in some four-fold, in others double.

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

Wherein he cannot but sin: or, wherein a man accustometh to sin by perjury or such like thing.

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

Verse 3. Have found that which was lost] The Roman lawyers laid it down as a sound maxim of jurisprudence, "that he who found any property and applied it to his own use, should be considered as a thief whether he knew the owner or not; for in their view the crime was not lessened, supposing the finder was totally ignorant of the right owner." Qui alienum quid jacens lucri faciendi causa sustulit, furti obstringitur, sive scit, cujus sit, sive ignoravit; nihil enim ad furtum minuendum, facit, quod, cujus sit, ignoret. - DIGESTOR, lib. xlvii., TIT. ii., de furtis, Leg. xliii., sec. 4. On this subject every honest man must say, that the man who finds any lost property, and does not make all due inquiry to find out the owner, should, in sound policy, be treated as a thief. It is said of the Dyrbaeans, a people who inhabited the tract between Bactria and India, that if they met with any lost property, even on the public road, they never even touched it. This was actually the case in this kingdom in the time of Alfred the Great, about A. D. 888; so that golden bracelets hung up on the public roads were untouched by the finger of rapine. One of Solon's laws was, Take not up what you laid not down. How easy to act by this principle in case of finding lost property: "This is not mine, and it would be criminal to convert it to my use unless the owner be dead and his family extinct." When all due inquiry is made, if no owner can be found, the lost property may be legally considered to be the property of the finder.

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

(3) Or have found.—The fifth instance adduced is of property which was neither entrusted nor exacted but accidentally found. For the law on lost property, see Exo_23:4; Deu_22:1-3.

And sweareth falsely.—This refers to all the five instances specified—that is, if he denies with an oath that property had been entrusted to him, that he had robbed, or exacted, or found anything.

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

3. that which was lost] See Exo_22:8-9.

The two characteristics of the Guilt-Offering are (1) the sacrifice is the same for all classes, (2) restitution is required in full, together with a fifth part more.

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.

Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it,.... Who having found anything lost, at once concludes it his own, and converts it to his own use, never inquiring after the proprietor of it, or taking any method to get knowledge of him, and restore it to him; but so far from that, being suspected of finding it, and charged with it denies it: Maimonides (k) gives a reason why a lost thing should be restored, not only because so to do is a virtue in itself praiseworthy, but because it has a reciprocal utility; for if you do not restore another's lost things, neither will your own be restored to you:

and sweareth falsely; which is to be understood, not of the last case only, but of all the rest, or of anyone of them, as it follows:

in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein; by unfaithfulness in a trust, cheating, defrauding, lying, and false swearing.

(k) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 40.

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

Lost. We acquire no title to the thing by finding it. The Roman law, as well as divines, condemn those who appropriate the thing found to their own use, as guilty of theft, whether they knew to whom it belonged or not; and Plato greatly commends the law of Solon, "Take not what thou didst not put down," a rule which the Dyrbeans and the people of Biblos rigorously observed. We may, however, take up what is lost, (Calmet) and endeavour to find the owner, who must indemnify us for our trouble; and, if we never find him, we are directed to give the price to the poor, for the owner’s welfare. (Haydock)

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).

Sweareth falsely; his oath being required, seeing there was no other way of discovery left.

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

3. Found… lost — The Roman code was evidently the voice of the same Divine Legislator speaking the same words through nature as he spake to Moses in the tabernacle. By that code he who found and appropriated any property was punished as a thief, whether he knew the owner or not. A brief statute of Solon was, “Take not up what you laid not down.”

Property as a natural right, without which civilization would be annihilated and the human race become extinct, finds ample safeguards in the Holy Scriptures.

Sweareth falsely — Avarice is the mother of lying and perjury.

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

Or have found that which was lost. Cf. Deu_22:2, Deu_22:3, "Thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again. In like manner shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his raiment; and with all lost thing of thy brother"s, which he hath lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise." And sweareth falsely. By previous legislation it had been appointed that, in case of a doubt arising as to what had become of property delivered to another to keep, there should be "an oath of the Lord between them both, that" the latter "hath not put his hand unto his neighbour"s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good". (Exo_22:11) This opened the way to false swearing where men were dishonest. Sinning therein. Wrong to man is sin against God in every ease, but a special sin against God is committed when an appeal has been made to him by oath, and the oath has been false.

Swearing falsely

is in an especial manner a sin against God, because in an oath an appeal is directly made to God, and if the thing sworn to is false, God is called to witness to a thing as true which the swearer knows to be false. It is also in an especial manner a sin against society, as mutual truth-telling is the very bond of social trust. When the moral and religious tone of a nation stands high, "an oath for confirmation is the end of all strife", (Heb_6:16) and on the other hand, when either a disbelief in God"s providence or a casuistical theology saps the confidence placed in promises confirmed by oaths, society is perilously near its dissolution (see Bishop Sanderson"s "Obligation of Oaths"). The sanctity of an oath is guarded by a special commandment in the Decalogue.

Sin a germ as well as a fruit.

It is contemplated by the Supreme Legislator, that if a man once cherish a dishonest thought, he will probably go beyond fraud to falsehood ("and lieth"), and, when necessary, from falsehood to perjury ("and sweareth falsely"). This is true to life. Sin is not only the consequence of the evil that came before it, but it is the cause of more sin which is to follow; it is not only the child but the parent of wrong. Learn that

I NO MAN WHO SINS CAN TELL HOW FAR HIS SIN WILL TAKE HIM. Hazael, Gehazi, Ahab, Judas, etc.; "facilis descensus Averni.

II IT IS IN THE NATURE OF SIN TO TEMPT TO FURTHER SIN. The instances with which we are familiar are not remarkable exceptions; they are illustrations of a principle at work everywhere and always. "There"s not a crime but takes its change out still in crime, when once rung on the counter of this world;" dishonesty naturally, if not necessarily, leads to lying, and lying to perjury. One sin is the germ of another, and is sure to bear fruit.

III IT IS A PART OF THE PENALTY OF SIN THAT IT SHOULD DO SO. We sometimes think that sin carries no penalty; so it seemed to the Psalmist, (Ps 73) but he was wrong, as he owned (verse 15). It not only ends disastrously ("then understood I their end"), but it results in certain, immediate, spiritual injury. On the day in which the forbidden fruit is eaten, we do die, in the soul.

IV THIS FACT OF THE DIFFUSIVENESS OF SIN HELPS TO EXPLAIN THE EXCEEDING EVIL OF IT IN THE SIGHT OF GOD. It may well be accounted "an evil and bitter thing," a thing which he "hates," which he "abhors," etc.

These considerations furnish

(1) a very strong reason for repentance, etc; and

(2) an equally strong inducement for the cultivation of holiness in the heart and life of the good. C.

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

Swear falsely - His oath being required, seeing there was no other way of discovery left.

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

מדו בד HIS LINEN ROBE — this is what is elsewhere termed the כתונת, the undercoat; and why then is it here called מדו? To intimate that it (the כתונת) must be made to his measure (מדו from מדד to “measure”) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 2 1; Yoma 23b).

על בשרו [AND LINEN DRAWERS HE SHALL PUT] UPON HIS FLESH — This implies that nothing should interpose between them (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 2 3; Zevachim 19a).

והרים את הדשן AND HE SHALL TAKE UP THE ASHES — He raked a full pan of ashes from the innermost consumed mass of ashes and deposited them at the east side of the כבש (the inclined plane leading up to the altar) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 4 Yoma 20a; cf. Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 2:1).

העולה‎ את ‎‏ אשר תאכל האש‎הדשן ‎ [HE SHALL TAKE OUT] THOSE ASHES INTO WHICH THE FIRE HATH CONSUMED THE BURNT OFFERING — and thus has made it into ashes; from those ashes he shall take out a תרומה, a portion, ושמו אצל המזבח AND PUT IT BESIDE THE ALTAR.

[על המזבח [THE BURNT OFFERING] ON THE ALTAR — This implies that if he (the priest) finds any limbs of the burnt offering that were not yet consumed he shall put them back on the altar after having raked the coals hither and thither and having taken from the innermost ashes, because it states, העולה על המזבח ‎את ‎which implies: the burnt offering (i.e.so long as it can be called an עולה and not דשן) must be ‎on the altar] (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 5; Yoma 45b; cf. Rashi there s. v. ‎אשר תאכל ‎ את העולה‎).

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 THE PRIEST SHALL PUT ON ‘MIDO’ (HIS GARMENT OF) LINEN. “This is a reference to the k’toneth (tunic). Why then does Scripture here call it mido [which means ‘his measure’]? It is to indicate that the tunic is to be made to his measure. AND HIS LINEN BREECHES SHALL HE PUT UPON HIS FLESH — that there should be nothing interposing between them.” This is Rashi’s language.Now the [daily] removal of the ashes [from the altar, which is the subject-matter of this verse], must be done with the priest wearing the [four] garments of priesthood, as no Service can be performed with only two of the [four] garments! However, He mentioned only these two garments because of new points that are added here to them, namely, that the tunic must be made to the priest’s measure. This means to say that if it was raised [above his feet], being so short that it did not reach his feet, and he performed therein one of the acts of offering, his Service is invalid. It further teaches that there must be nothing intervening between the breeches and his flesh. But the law requires equally that the priest who removes the ashes from the altar should wear all [four] priestly garments, for since Scripture mentioned that the removing of the ashes must be done with priestly garments, we know [automatically] that it requires four for the common priest and eight for the High Priest. So also is it explained in the second chapter of Tractate Yoma and in Torath Kohanim: 2:1. “Why does Scripture repeat the term yilbash [‘he shall put on’ — ‘V’lavash hakohein’ (and the priest shall put on) his linen garment, and his linen breeches ‘yilbash’ (he shall put) upon his flesh]? It is to include the turban and the belt” [which the priest is also to put on for the removing of the ashes].Now Onkelos translated the word mido as levushin [“garments” — as opposed to Rashi’s interpretation, according to which it refers only to one garment, the tunic]. It would appear then that according to Onkelos, the word mido is a term which includes all of the priest’s garments, as if the verse were stating, “and the priest shall put on linen garments.” Similarly we are to understand the expressions: ‘madav’ (his clothes) rent; that cometh down upon the collar ‘midothav’, which means upon the edge of his garments; girded with ‘mido’ (his apparel) of war, which means his garments. This then will be in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who says (Exodus 39:28, Vol. II, p. 614). that the belt of the common priest was unlike the belt of the High Priest. as an inclusive term for “all” the priest’s garments, and the verse states, and the priest shall put on ‘mido’ (his ‘garments’ of) linen, Onkelos accordingly must agree with Rabbi Dosa that the belt of the common priest was unlike that of the High Priest, as the belt of the common priest was only of linen. Hence it states that the common priest shall put on all his garments of linen which includes the belt.

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.