Latin original · 40 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss · long chapter, split into parts; this part covers 59:529–59:568 (1230 verses in all)
the distribution of the two cubits by which each goats'-hair veil is longer. This is 'of that which is over in the veils, of the length of the veils, shall be covering over the sides of the tabernacle'—those outer sides, namely, which pertain to the court—'on this side and on that, that it may cover'; and not those of the court itself, which are stretched with a hundred cubits each and twenty columns; for these were not made longer than those of the inner tabernacle which are stretched with ten curtains and themselves also have twenty columns. For just as the two sides of the inner tabernacle on the north and south are extended a hundred cubits each, so also are those of the outer court.
The length of the goats'-hair veils, therefore—by which they exceed the length of the curtains—is not of use for covering those outer sides of the same number of columns. For they give to the outer sides only as much as they would give to the inner, that is, a hundred cubits each, which make two hundred.
But because for the eastern and western sides forty cubits each would suffice if only the inner tabernacle were girded with goats'-hair veils, yet when the sides of the court were added the breadth of the tabernacle grew, so that for covering the eastern and western sides now not forty but fifty cubits each are necessary, the length of the goats'-hair veils—greater than that of the curtains—could be of use for covering these, so that not both cubits by which they are longer by two each should be expended on one part, but 'a cubit on this side and a cubit on that,' and thus from that very superabundance the eastern side might have ten cubits and the western another ten.
For twenty are twice ten—since the thirty cubits of the eleventh veil are subtracted from this compass by doubling and spreading-beneath. But since that which in Latin is rendered 'a cubit on this side and a cubit on that, of that which is over in the veils, of the length of the veils of the tabernacle, shall be covering over the sides of the tabernacle,' the Greek has 'plagia,' which some Latin writers have interpreted not as 'sides' (latera) but as 'obliques' (obliqua), it rightly gives us pause; for although nothing here seems oblique, where all the angles of the four sides are right angles, yet those cannot be called 'plagia' of which one is at the face and the other at the rear, that is, the eastern and western; but those on the right and the left, that is, the northern and southern, can be called 'plagia':
Since, then, those which have fifty cubits each are not 'plagia'—for the covering of which sides we have said the excess length of the goats'-hair veils could be of use—how will it be true that 'a cubit on this side and a cubit on that, of that which is over in the veils of the length of the veils of the tabernacle, shall be covering over the sides of the tabernacle'? But doubtless he speaks of covering those sides which he also calls 'backs,' of fifteen cubits and three columns each, which together with the court gate, having twenty cubits and four columns, complete fifty cubits and ten columns. These sides, from their own boundaries, set the court gate in the middle on the one hand, and the tabernacle door on the other;
between the court gate and the tabernacle door a space lies, as much as those cubits enclose—twenty at the gate, and fifteen on the right and left. In that space is the altar of burnt offerings, within the court gate, before the tabernacle door; and between the altar and the tabernacle door the bronze laver, where the priests washed their hands and feet. But when the measurements are carefully examined, perhaps in these sides of three columns, which are called 'plagia' in Greek, some obliquity also is found, so that not without reason certain of our interpreters rendered 'obliqua' what they found in the Greek as 'plagia.'
For the goats'-hair veils cannot with their fifteen cubits cover the fifteen cubits of the hangings on those sides, unless at the rear parts of the tabernacle, before they are turned aside toward those sides, they have expended not more than ten cubits. And thus, from the straight line of the rear of the tabernacle—that is, on the west side, which line, when it had had eight columns pertaining to the inner tabernacle, began to have ten with the sides of the outer court added; and when it had had forty cubits pertaining to the eight columns,
began to have fifty on the ten columns—from this line, therefore, when ten cubits coming from each angle have been covered by the goats'-hair veils, there will remain in the middle thirty not covered by the goats'-hair veils, but only by those curtains, in the middle of whose thirty cubits, through however many cubits they were stretched, was the tabernacle door.
Accordingly those sides of three columns and fifteen cubits, if from those boundaries of theirs by which they were joined to the court gate they lay open between themselves by twenty cubits—since so much had the gate which separated those sides—but from their other boundaries, by which they clung to that rear line of the tabernacle of which we have spoken, had thirty cubits between themselves, without doubt were oblique, since they lay more open between themselves on this side, where they had thirty cubits in the middle, than on that side, where they had twenty cubits in the middle.
Thus those ten cubits of goats'-hair veils, which were the half of the abounding length, which were of use for the rear part of the tabernacle, that is the western, just as the other ten were of use for the front part, that is the eastern, completed with five cubits each the covering of those sides which in Greek are called 'plagia,' five on this side and five on that. And if these had been lacking, ten cubits would be covered on those same sides and five would be bare. And so, as far as it seems to me, it is better understood that it was said from this:
'a cubit on this side and a cubit on that, of that which is over in the veils of the length of the veils of the tabernacle'—not because they were, when there were five on this side and five on that, but because they abounded from that length in which the goats'-hair veils were longer than the curtains by two cubits each; from which two cubits of each veil a cubit had gone to the eastern part, and there remained certainly the other cubit for the western part, so that 'a cubit on this side and a cubit on that' should be covering over the 'plagia' of the tabernacle. Whence it was said, 'on this side and on that, that it may cover,' because it would not cover the whole if those same five cubits had been lacking. Now, since enough has been argued how all those things are to be understood which in the setting up of the tabernacle seemed obscure,
let us strive, if we can, to show briefly what has been accomplished by this same discussion. From the west, therefore, one entered, and the first thing on entering was the court gate, which lay open twenty cubits and had four columns, from which hung a veil stretched twenty cubits, but raised up five cubits, varied with needlework in those four colors so often mentioned. Entering by this gate, one was received into the court, whose sides on the right and left were extended inward fifteen cubits each with three columns each, so that at the point they reached they set in the middle the door of the inner tabernacle, just as at the point where they began they set in the middle the court gate. This court, then, was broader than it was long.
For its length was from its own gate as far as the door of the inner tabernacle, in about fifteen cubits; but its breadth around the gate was in twenty cubits, and around the door in thirty cubits. Whence those sides are understood to have been oblique, which were on the right and left in three columns and fifteen cubits. In this court was the square altar of sacrifices, five cubits long, namely, and as many broad. Between the gate and the altar was a space, where those moved about who laid the sacrifices upon the altar;
but further within, between the altar and the tabernacle door, was the place of ashes before the altar, and then the bronze laver, where the priests washed their hands and feet, whether about to serve the altar in the court or about to enter the inner tabernacle. Moreover the hangings of this court, on the sides of three columns, were of linen, stretched fifteen cubits, raised five cubits. From this court, therefore, one entered the tabernacle door, when one had passed the altar and the bronze laver. And one entered by opening the curtains, of which ten—five on this side and five on that, set opposite one another—girded that whole inner tabernacle.
To one who had entered this door there met the veil which had been set opposite the door, stretched upon five columns, stretched with those four colors; which veil, when he commanded it to be made, he called 'the drawing-veil,' I believe because it would run by being drawn and drawn back, when it covered and opened the entrance. Having passed this veil, there received one the middle part of the tabernacle, between this veil and that other inner one, which had been placed upon four columns, made of those four colors; and it separated between the holy things which were on the outside and the holy of holies placed within.
In this middle space, therefore, between those two veils stood a golden table, which held the loaves of the presentation on the north side, and opposite it a golden lampstand with seven lamps on the south side. Thus far it was permitted for the priests of the second order to enter. But further within, that is, in the Holy of Holies beyond the veil of the four columns, was the gilded ark of the testimony, in which were the stone tablets of the law, the rod of Aaron, and the golden urn with the manna; and above it the golden mercy-seat, where stood two cherubim overshadowing the mercy-seat with their wings, looking upon one another and upon it.
Before the ark, however, that is, between the ark and the veil, was placed the altar of incense, which Scripture sometimes calls golden, sometimes gilded — calling it golden precisely because it was overlaid with gold. It was not permitted to enter this Holy of Holies except for the high priest alone, and that daily for the offering of incense; but once a year with blood to purify the altar, and, if ever necessity happened to require it, for the sin of the priest or of the whole congregation, as is written in Leviticus. Thus one entered the tabernacle from the west, that is, from the gate of the court up to the eastern side within, where the ark of the testimony was.
Now this inner tabernacle, which began not from the gate of the court but from the doorway called the door of the tabernacle, and ended lengthwise at the eastern side where the ark of the testimony was, was enclosed by ten curtains, each of which was twenty-eight cubits, five on this side and five on that, joined to one another by loops and rings and set opposite one another, and by twenty columns on each of the longer sides, north and south, and by eight columns on the western side; but on the eastern side there were no columns, only curtains. These ten curtains were raised to a height of four cubits and were stretched around the whole circuit to two hundred and eighty cubits;
Of these, a hundred cubits were on the longer sides of the south and north, along the twenty columns each; but forty cubits were on the remaining two shorter sides — one on the west along the eight columns, the other on the east, where there were no columns, but the curtains alone were stretched from the two corner columns only, with none in the middle; and these ten curtains were woven of four colors. This inner tabernacle, then, was surrounded by a court, on the south by twenty columns and on the north by twenty. These two sides of the court had the same length as the sides of the inner tabernacle, since they too were extended by twenty columns each over the same number of cubits, that is, a hundred.
On the eastern side, however, the court was enclosed by ten columns, fifty cubits: this row of columns was straight and ran into those two corner columns of the inner tabernacle, which the eastern part alone possessed; and so with these it was completed to ten. On the western side the court had indeed ten columns, yet not in a straight row, but, as we have already shown, in the manner of a triple-porch, four at the gate and three on the sides. But the whole court around the tabernacle was girded with hangings of fine linen, which were raised to five cubits. Above these came eleven curtains of hair, on the one part five joined together, on the other six. In the joining, then, of the five curtains there were a hundred and fifty cubits;
but on the other part, in the joining of the six curtains there were a hundred and eighty cubits, since each single curtain was thirty cubits. But so that the one part might be made equal to the other, one curtain was doubled at the front of the tabernacle, that is, on the east, and half a curtain was folded under at the rear part, that is, on the west. And thus thirty cubits were subtracted, as much as was the length of one curtain, and a hundred and fifty remained, as many as there were on the other part also. The circuit, therefore, of the hair curtains, by which the court of the tabernacle was girded, was stretched to three hundred cubits, just as the circuit of the ten curtains of the inner tabernacle was two hundred and eighty cubits.
For each single curtain had twenty-eight cubits in length, but the hair curtains were thirty cubits long. Wherefore, from the compass of the curtains of the inner tabernacle, which was two hundred and eighty cubits, a hundred cubits were on the longer sides of south and north, and forty on the two shorter sides of east and west; but from the compass of the hair curtains, by which the outer court was covered, since the compass was three hundred cubits, a hundred were on the longer sides of south and north, because they were equal to the sides of the inner tabernacle, but fifty on the two remaining parts of east and west.
And by this, those two cubits by which the hair curtain was longer than the tabernacle-curtain contributed not to the sides of south and north, which were equal for the outer court and the inner tabernacle, but to the sides of east and west. For on those sides the breadth of the tabernacle had grown, since the court was placed around it on the outside. But fifty cubits of the hair curtains on the eastern part were stretched along the straight row of ten columns, and to these one cubit of those two — by which the length of these same curtains had been greater — contributed; but the other fifty cubits, which were due to the western side, to which the other of those two cubits contributed, were not stretched along a straight row of columns.
For there was that triple-porch, so to speak, which enclosed the space of the court, where the altar of sacrifices was, with four columns at the gate and three on the sides. And by this, those fifty cubits could not even gird the gate, but were stretched only up to the covering of those oblique sides, which were on the three columns and fifteen cubits. But the hair curtains were raised to four cubits, and by them were covered the fine-linen hangings of the court, whose raising was five cubits. But the reddened skins came over the hair curtains. Above, however, that is, on the part of the roof serving as a vault, the tabernacle was covered with skins of hyacinth-blue: whether together with the court and that inner space does not appear;
but it is more credible that the spaces of the court which were between the outer and inner columns had open sky, especially that of the west, where the altar of sacrifices was. BOOK THREE. QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS. QUESTION I. 'But if a soul shall sin, and shall hear the voice of one swearing, and himself be a witness, or shall have seen, or have been privy to it, if he shall not report it, then he shall bear the sin.' This is: if he shall not report it, he shall bear the sin. For the 'and' that is added is of a usage customary in the Scriptures. But since this sense is obscure, it seems it must be expounded. For it seems to say this: that a man sins, in whose hearing someone swears falsely, and he knows him to swear falsely, and keeps silent.
But then he knows, if he was a witness to the matter about which the oath is sworn, or saw it, or was privy to it — that is, in some way came to know it, or beheld it with his own eyes, or the very one who swears disclosed it to him; for so he could be privy to it. But between the fear of this sin and the fear of betraying men there very often arises no small temptation. For we can, by admonishing or forbidding, call back from so grave a sin one who is ready to perjure himself; but if he will not listen and in our presence swears falsely concerning a matter we know, whether he ought to be exposed — if, once exposed, he even runs into peril of death — is a most difficult question.
But since here it did not express to whom this ought to be disclosed — whether to him to whom the oath is sworn, or to a priest or to someone who not only cannot persecute him by inflicting punishment but can even pray for him — it seems to me that a man frees himself even from the bond of sin if he discloses it to such persons as can profit the perjurer more than harm him, whether toward correcting him or toward appeasing God on his behalf, provided he too apply the medicine of confession. But after this kind of sin, which he mentioned concerning the unreported perjury of someone, he commanded no sacrifice to be offered for it; but then he added:
'Whatever soul shall touch any unclean thing, whether the carcass of an unclean thing captured by a beast, or of those which are the carcasses of unclean abominations, the carcass of unclean cattle, or shall touch any uncleanness of a man, any of his uncleanness by which he shall be defiled if he touch it, and it be hidden from him, but afterward he come to know it and shall trespass.' Neither here did he mention a sacrifice that should be offered for that kind of sin, but he further added and said: 'Whatever soul shall swear, distinguishing with his lips to do evil or to do good according to all things whatsoever a man shall distinguish with an oath, and it be hidden from him, and he come to know it, and he sin in one of these, and he confess the sin for which he sinned against it.'
When all these things had been connected and set out without any intervening mention of sacrifice, he adds and says: 'And he shall offer for the things in which he has trespassed to the Lord, for the sin by which he sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a she-goat of the goats for the sin; and the priest shall make entreaty for him for the sin, and the sin shall be remitted to him.' What is it, then, that for the unspoken perjury of anyone, and for the fact that a carcass or something unclean is touched, he mentioned no sacrifice, but for that sin where someone unknowingly swears falsely, he said a lamb or a she-goat is offered? Or ought this sacrifice to be understood for all the aforesaid? For he wished first to enumerate all things, and thus to bring in by what sacrifice they can be expiated.
But in all those aforesaid kinds of sins there are certain things somewhat obscurely placed on account of the modes of expression, such as what he says: 'the carcass of iumenta [beasts of burden].' For those things which are called 'ktene' by the Greeks, most of our people have interpreted as 'iumenta' — a name which in Latin usage belongs to those animals by whose labors we are chiefly assisted in carrying burdens, such as horses, asses, mules, camels, and any of this kind; but what the Greeks call 'ktene' are understood so broadly that all or nearly all cattle are comprehended under that name.
And therefore, by a new kind of expression, as it were pleonastically, 'of the unclean' was added in the Greek when 'of the beasts' was said, since there are also clean cattle which are called 'ktene.' But those which Latin usage calls 'iumenta' are, according to the distinction of the law, none but unclean. Likewise, as to what he says: 'Whatever soul shall swear, distinguishing to do evil or to do good,' it is asked what he meant by 'distinguishing.' For Scripture constantly uses this word. Whence is also that: 'I will render my vows which my lips have distinguished'; likewise it is said to Ezekiel: 'When I say to the wicked, You shall surely die; and you have not distinguished nor spoken'; likewise it is written:
'If any woman established in her father's house shall vow a vow, distinguishing with her lips against her own soul.' It seems, therefore, that this 'distinguishing' is as it were a definition, by which something is set apart from the rest which are not bound merely by a word. So then let them be taken as though it were said: 'The soul that shall swear, defining with his lips to do evil or to do good, according to all things which a man shall define with an oath, and it be hidden from him' — that is, not knowing that it must be done or not done, he swore to do it — 'and he come to know it.'
'And he sin in one of these' — either because he swore before he knew, or because he did what he swore and afterward came to know that it ought not to have been done nor sworn — 'and he confess the sin for which he sinned,' that is, the sin which he sinned: for it is an idiom. But as to what he added: 'against it,' what is understood except: he confessed against the sin itself, that is, by confessing he accused the sin? 'And he shall offer for the things in which he trespassed to the Lord, for the sin by which he sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb' — by customary idiom he says 'a female lamb,' as though a lamb could be not female — 'or a she-goat of the goats,' just as 'a lamb of the sheep,' as though there could be either a lamb except of sheep or a she-goat except of goats.
But there is some question, indeed no small one, as to what it means that he constantly says: 'but afterward he shall come to know it and shall trespass,' as though the trespass then comes about when it has been known. Or is it rather because satisfaction cannot be made except for what is known? But he does not say: 'but afterward he shall come to know it and shall repent of it.' What, then, is: 'afterward he shall come to know it and shall trespass'? Is it: if after knowledge he shall trespass? So that, if knowingly he did what ought not to be done, then a purgation would be owed for the trespass. But he did not speak beforehand thus. For he seems to be treating those sins which are committed by the ignorant and hence by the unwilling. Perhaps, then, by some kind of expression, 'he shall trespass' is said for 'he shall have learned that it is a trespass.'
Or is it rather said in inverted order — for Scripture has such kinds of expression too — what in other similar passages was said in the right order? For whereas elsewhere it is so often written: 'and he shall trespass and it shall become known to him,' here only, in inverted order, as I said, 'he shall come to know it' is said first, then 'and he shall trespass.' But in its proper order it could be said thus: 'Whatever soul shall touch any unclean thing, whether the carcass of an unclean thing captured by a beast, or of those which are carcasses of unclean abominations, the carcass of unclean beasts, or shall touch any uncleanness of a man, any of his uncleanness by which he shall be defiled if he touch it, and it be hidden from him, and he shall trespass, but afterward he shall come to know it.'
'But if his hand is not able to afford what suffices for a sheep, he shall offer for his sin which he sinned two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the Lord, one for the sin and one for a whole burnt offering.' Certainly here he opens the question about which, when he spoke above, we were in doubt. For he seems to say this: one for the sin, the other for a whole burnt offering, because the sacrifice for sin was not offered except with a whole burnt offering. Finally, when earlier he spoke separately of whole burnt offerings, he mentioned a turtledove and did not say two; but now he says two, precisely because the sacrifice for sin was not offered without a whole burnt offering. What, therefore, he said above:
'And he shall place it upon the whole burnt offering' — there is no doubt that the whole burnt offering came first, and then that was placed upon it; but now concerning the birds he speaks otherwise, so that first one bird is offered for the sin, then the other for a whole burnt offering. But as to what he says: 'if a soul be hidden from it by forgetfulness,' that is: if it be done by forgetfulness, so that it be hidden from him or her — if you refer it to the soul, since by saying 'him' he referred it to the man. For here he calls men 'souls.' 'And he sin unwillingly in the holy things of the Lord.' This kind of sin seems obscurely placed, but in what follows it is opened up, where he says, after the sacrifice offered from the ram: 'he shall restore it and shall add a fifth part.'
For there it is understood that this is to sin against the holy things through forgetfulness — 'to usurp something through forgetfulness' which is due to the holy things, whether to priests or to offerings or to first-fruits, or whatever is of this kind. 'And whatever soul shall sin and shall do one of all the commandments of the Lord which ought not to be done, and shall not have known it and shall trespass and shall take upon himself his sin, then he shall offer a ram without blemish from the flock, at a price of silver, for the trespass, to the priest; and the priest shall make entreaty for him on account of his ignorance which he was ignorant of and himself did not know, and it shall be remitted to him. For he trespassed a trespass before the Lord.'
Apart from the unusual density of expressions — which by now, on account of the constant repetition, ought to be very familiar — this whole sense is obscure, since it is asked how this kind of trespass is to be distinguished from those which he embraced above under a certain generality. For reason seems to demand this: that to certain kinds of sins certain kinds of sacrifices by which they are expiated should be applied. But what I have just mentioned does not specially express a sin, but seems to move within that generality of which he spoke before, when he appointed a sacrifice — for the priest a calf, and for the whole congregation likewise a calf, for the ruler a he-goat, and for any soul, that is, for any man, a she-goat, or if he wished, a sheep, yet a female animal.
Then he began to make exceptions of certain kinds of sins and to express by name for which of them what ought to be offered; as concerning the heard-and-kept-silent perjury of anyone, and concerning a touched carcass and an unclean thing, and false swearing through ignorance — a lamb from the sheep or a she-goat of the goats, or a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons, or a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour; but for the one sinning who through forgetfulness usurped something of the holy things, a ram and the restitution of the same thing with a fifth part added. But now, without the species of sin being expressed, adding generally: 'Whatever soul shall trespass and shall do one of all the commandments of the Lord which ought not to be done' — thus he was saying in that generality: