Leviticus - 22:22



22 Blind, injured, maimed, having a wart, festering, or having a running sore, you shall not offer these to Yahweh, nor make an offering by fire of them on the altar to Yahweh.

Verse In-Depth

Explanation and meaning of Leviticus 22:22.

Differing Translations

Compare verses for better understanding.
Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the LORD.
If it be blind, or broken, or have a scar or blisters, or a scab, or a dry scurf: you shall not offer them to the Lord, nor burn any thing of them upon the Lord's altar.
Blind, or broken, or maimed, or ulcerous, or with itch, or scabbed ye shall not present these to Jehovah, nor make an offering by fire of them on the altar to Jehovah.
blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye do not bring these near to Jehovah, and a fire-offering ye do not make of them on the altar to Jehovah.
Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a running sore, or scurvy, or scabbed, you shall not offer these to the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them on the altar to the LORD.
Anything blind or broken or damaged or having any disease or any mark on it may not be offered to the Lord; you may not make an offering of it by fire on the altar to the Lord.
Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scabbed, or scurvy, ye shall not offer these unto the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the LORD.
Blind, injured, maimed, having a wart, festering, or having a running sore, you shall not offer these to the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them on the altar to the LORD.
If it is blind, or if it is broken, or if it has a scar, or if it is has a boil, or a skin disease or infection, you shall not offer these to the Lord, nor shall you burn any of these upon the altar of the Lord.
Caecum aut fractum, aut concisum labiis, aut verrucatum, vel scabiosum, vel impetiginosum, non offeretis ista Jehovae: neque oblationem ignitam dabitis ex his super altare Jehovae.

*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.


Historical Commentaries

Scholarly Analysis and Interpretation.

Either a bullock, or a lamb, that hath anything superfluous. An exception is here stated as to free-will-offerings; for in them God does not refuse a diminutive animal, or one which has a member either contracted, or of excessive size. And doubtless a greater license ought to be given, when a person is not under the obligation either of a vow or any other necessity. Still we must remember that no victim is acceptable to God, which labors under any notable defect.

Blind, or broken, or maimed,.... Which is "blind" of one eye, or both: and so the Egyptians, as they would not sacrifice any of their oxen that had any blemishes on them, and were of a different colour, or changed in their form, so likewise such that were deprived of either of their eyes (x). Some, as Aben Ezra observes, restrain that which is "broken" to its being broken in the head; but others interpret it of any fracture of the foot, as well as the head, and even of the tail, side, or rib; though others think, that such fractures as were not open and visible are excepted, as that of the rib; so Gersom; and with the Heathens, as Pliny (y) would have remarked, as they were not used to sacrifice calves, brought on men's shoulders, so neither anything that halted: that which is maimed some understand of that whose foot is broken, as Aben Ezra also remarks; but the word is by the Septuagint rendered, "cut in the tongue"; and the Targum of Jonathan, "whose eyebrows are smitten"; and Jarchi seems to take in both, interpreting it the eyebrow which is cut or broken, and so the lip, which is cut or broken: but it is rather to be understood more generally of its being maimed or mutilated in any part of it; so with the Heathens, as Porphyry (z) affirms, beasts that were mutilated were not to be sacrificed; and in the Comedian (a), a sacrifice is objected to, because it had no tail; upon which the Scholiast observes, that whatever was mutilated was not offered in sacred services, nor was any thing imperfect or unsound sacrificed to the gods; and particularly Servius (b) remarks, if their tongues were cut or slit; which illustrates the Septuagint version, which is observed by Grotius:
or having a wen: or full of warts, as others; the Targum of Jonathan is, whose eyes are smitten with a mixture of white and black; and so Gersom interprets it of a like defect in the eye, in the white of the eye; for he says, if it was in the black or pupil of the eye, the eye would be blind:
or scurvy or scabbed: the same of those in men; See Gill on Leviticus 21:20,
ye shall not offer these unto the Lord; any creatures defective in any of these instances; three times this is said, as Jarchi observes, to make them careful concerning the sanctification of them, and concerning the slaying of them, and concerning the sprinkling of their blood:
nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the Lord; a burnt offering on the altar of burnt offering, or burn the fat of them upon it.
(x) Chaeremon. apud Porphyr. de Abstinentia, l. 4. sect. 7. (y) Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 45. (z) De Abstinentia, l. 2. sect. 23. (a) Aristoph. Acharnens. ver. 784. (b) In Virgil. Aeneid. l. 6.

*More commentary available at chapter level.


Discussion on Leviticus 22:22

User discussion of the verse.






*By clicking Submit, you agree to our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use.