Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 59 part 18/33

When this moved us, it seemed to us, as we said above, that not the goat alone was commanded to be offered for the sin of the people, but also the ram and the calf, so that to these three 'for sin' is to be understood: because there were both leaders among the people, for whom the goat had to be offered, and individuals could have had their own particular sins, for whom the ram, and all had some one sin, for whom the calf; just as from the beginning it had been commanded that a calf should be offered for the sin of the whole congregation. And therefore, when they were sacrificed, the goat alone is named, so that the others also, though unmentioned, might be understood, by a manner of speech naming the whole from a part, because all were for sins.

When he was treating of the carcasses of unclean animals: 'And every earthen vessel,' he says, 'into which any of them shall have fallen — whatsoever things are within shall be unclean, and it shall be broken,' that is, the vessel itself. 'And every food that is eaten, upon which water shall have come, shall be unclean to you.' Not any water is to be understood, which if it comes upon the food makes it unclean, but from that vessel which was made unclean by the unclean carcasses, if perhaps that vessel had water. 'To instruct the children of Israel between the living-bearing things that are eaten and the living-bearing things that are not eaten.' What the Greek has as 'zōogonounta,' certain of our translators preferred to render as 'life-making things' (vivificantia), because our usage has somehow received this word,

rather than to make a new, unaccustomed word, if it could be said 'living-begetting things' (vivigignentia). For those things are called 'zōogonounta' not which vivify, that is, make to live, but which beget living offspring, that is, not eggs but chicks. What is the meaning of what he says about the woman who has given birth: 'She shall touch no holy thing, and shall not enter into the sanctuary'? What sanctuary does he wish to be understood, when we read that none but the priests were wont to enter into the tabernacle, and up to the inner second veil; but beyond that veil itself, where the ark was, none but the one high priest? Or could even before the tabernacle, where was the altar of sacrifices, be called the sanctuary? For often even the court itself is called a holy place, when it is said: 'In a holy place they shall eat them.'

Perhaps women were wont to enter there when they offered their gifts, which were to be placed upon the altar. What is the meaning of his saying: 'If a woman bear a male child, she shall be unclean seven days: according to the days of her separation she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin: and thirty-three days she shall sit in her clean blood. She shall touch no holy thing, and shall not enter into the sanctuary'? What difference is there between those seven days, in which he calls her unclean, and the thirty-three, in which she shall sit in her clean blood? For if she is now not unclean during the thirty-three days, why does she not touch what is holy? Or is there still this difference, because she is in blood, though clean?

So that this may be the difference: because when she is unclean, wherever she also sits, she makes it unclean; but when she now sits in clean blood, only that she may not touch what is holy nor enter into the sanctuary? For this is what he says: 'according to the days of the separation of her purification,' since he says in another place that the uncleanness of a woman who is purged by her menses is of seven days, when everything upon which she sits shall be unclean. But he says 'of separation,' because she withdrew somewhat, that she might not defile everything, while she was passing through those days. These days of her uncleanness, if she bore a female, the law doubled and made fourteen:

and the remaining days, in which she sat in her clean blood, he had commanded these also to be observed as double, that is, sixty-six, so that all might be forty in the birth of a male, eighty in that of a female. But some Greek codices do not have 'in her clean blood,' but 'in her unclean blood.' 'And when the days of her purification are fulfilled, for a son or for a daughter she shall offer a lamb of a year old without blemish for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for sin, at the door of the tabernacle of the testimony, to the priest. And he shall offer it before the Lord; and the priest shall make intercession for her, and shall purge her from the fountain of her blood. This is the law of her that has borne a male or a female.'

'But if her hand cannot find what is enough for a lamb, she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and one for sin. And the priest shall make intercession for her, and she shall be purged.' Rightly, then, it is not to be read above: 'she shall offer a lamb of a year old without blemish for a burnt offering *and* a young pigeon or a turtledove for sin,' as some codices have. But as it was said: 'and a young pigeon or a turtledove for sin,' seeing that afterward he says: 'if her hand cannot find what is enough for a lamb, she shall also take two turtledoves.' Here the 'and' seems to have more than is needed; for with that conjunction removed, it follows entire:

'She shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons,' namely one bird for a burnt offering, the other for sin. But for what sin? Is giving birth a sin? Or is here shown that propagation from Adam, whence the Apostle says: 'from one unto condemnation,' and because 'through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and so it passed unto all men'? And here it appears sufficiently in what manner it was said: 'For I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother nourish me in the womb.' Why, then, does Scripture not say that what was born is purged by this sacrifice, but she herself who gave birth? Or is the purgation referred to her indeed, from whom that origin was drawn, because of the fountain of blood?

Yet it could not be done without the purgation of that very offspring, which arose from that same blood? For to what does that pertain which he said above: 'for a son or for a daughter she shall offer a lamb of a year old without blemish for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for sin,' if nothing was done by this sacrifice for those who were being born? But if anyone shall try so to distinguish as to say that it is not to be joined: 'for a son or for a daughter she shall offer a lamb of a year old without blemish for a burnt offering and a young pigeon for sin,' but should rather be read thus:

'And when the days of her purification are fulfilled for a son or for a daughter,' that is, when the days of purification are fulfilled over him or over her, namely the son or the daughter, so that then from another sense it may follow: 'she shall offer a lamb of a year old without blemish for a burnt offering and a young pigeon for sin,' that is, for her own sin, when the days of her purification for a son or for a daughter are completed: whoever, then, shall think it is thus to be distinguished, will be refuted from the Gospel, where, when they did some such thing for the Lord born of a virgin, more on account of the custom of the law than on account of the necessity of anything to be expiated or purged in him, it is thus read:

'And when his parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law.' It is not said 'for his mother,' but 'for him,' although those things were done which are here commanded concerning two turtledoves or two young pigeons. For thus he too deigned to be baptized with the baptism of John, which was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, although he had no sin. Rightly, therefore, certain of our translators so interpreted this passage also in Leviticus, that they did not say 'over a son or over a daughter,' but 'for a son or for a daughter.' For they understood this to be the force of this preposition in this place, where the Greek says 'peri hyiou ē peri thygatros.'

Indeed it is to be noted how poor the Lord willed to be born, so that not for him a lamb and a young pigeon or a turtledove was offered, but a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons, as is read in the Gospel: which the Scripture of Leviticus commanded then to be offered, if the hand of the one offering had not what is enough for a lamb. 'To a man, if there shall have been made in the skin of his body a bright scar of a sign, and there shall have been in the skin of his color a touch of leprosy.' As if by explaining he said afterward whence what he had first said might be understood, since he had said: 'To a man, if there shall have been made in the skin of his body a bright scar.' Lest we should so understand 'scar' as is wont to be the trace of a healed wound, he made clear that he was speaking of color, when he added:

'and there shall have been in the skin of his color a touch of leprosy.' Whatever, then, it is, it is a fault of color, which he calls by the name of scar. But when he says 'a touch of leprosy,' not that color is perceived by touch, but he thus says 'touch of leprosy' as though the man himself or his body were touched by leprosy, that is, stained and vitiated. As it is wont to be said: 'the fever touched him or did not touch him.' Finally, he calls the very stain a 'touch,' and always calls it by that name. Whence certain of our translators rendered it not 'touch,' but 'stain.' By which name indeed what is read seems to sound more plainly: but the Greek too could have said not 'haphē,' that is 'touch,' but 'mōmon,' that is 'stain,' whence he says 'amōmon,' meaning immaculate.

Although Scripture is wont to call 'amōmon' pure not from that alone which occurs in color, but from every fault. Whence he wishes not the stain of color, but the mark of every fault, to be understood by what he calls it. He could therefore have said 'spilon,' which pertains to color alone: which word the Apostle used, where he says of the Church: 'not having spot or wrinkle.' But he said neither 'spilon' nor 'mōmon,' but 'haphē,' that is 'touch,' which even in the Greek tongue is unusually said of colors, and yet the Seventy translators were not ashamed to say this in Greek. Why, then, should the Latins be ashamed?

But as to what is said, 'the scar of a sign,' it is so called either because it signifies something, or rather because it distinguishes the man himself from others by a certain sign, that is, renders him notable. What is the meaning of his saying: 'And the priest shall see, and shall defile him, to whom he shall come to be cleansed'? But 'shall defile' is said for 'shall pronounce defiled,' if he shall have seen in him those things which Scripture says of the stain of leprosy. 'But if there shall be a bright white in the skin of his color, and its appearance shall not be lower than the skin.' 'Bright white' — 'touch' is understood, that is, that stain of color, not a hair. As to what he says afterward: 'but if the signification shall have been turned and changed in the skin' — he calls 'signification' that which above is read as 'sign' in the Latin.

For the Greek both above and here used one and the same word, saying 'sēmasian.' 'And the priest shall separate him for seven days a second time; and the priest shall see him on the seventh day a second time, and behold, the touch is dim, the touch is not turned in the skin. And the priest shall cleanse him; for it is a sign': that is, 'shall pronounce him cleansed'; for it is not leprosy, but a sign. 'But if the signification shall have been turned and changed in the skin after the priest saw him, in order to cleanse him, and it shall have been seen again by the priest, and the priest shall see him, and behold, the signification is changed in the skin, then the priest shall defile him; it is leprosy.' Here too he said 'shall defile' for 'shall pronounce defiled':

The 'and' moreover has more from the manner of Scripture's speech. This, then, seems to have been what he wished to admonish: that, when there shall have been seen only a white and bright color, discolored from the sound color, it should still be examined by the priest, so that, if he shall see also the hair changed into a white color and the place of the skin, in which the white color is, made lower, then he should pronounce leprosy, that is, should defile the man by pronouncing him leprous. 'But if,' he says, 'there shall be a bright white in the skin of his color' — that is, if that touch shall be bright white: by which name he calls the same stain — 'and its appearance shall not be lower than the skin, and the hair shall not be turned into white, but it itself is dim' — that is, the hair itself, because it is not white — 'then the priest shall separate the touch seven days.'

'And the priest shall see the touch on the seventh day' — that is, that stain — 'and behold, the touch remains before him, the touch is not changed in the skin,' that is, it is not found discolored and dissimilar from the skin. Therefore what was faulty has been healed. But he still commands that the same soundness be tested through another seven days, and therefore it follows and he says: 'And the priest shall separate him seven days a second time' — that is, another seven days — 'and the priest shall see him on the seventh day a second time, and behold, the touch is dim' — that is, because it is not white and bright, and thereby of the same color as the sound color — 'it is not.'

The affected spot on the skin has changed — as he said a little before, that is, it is not different from the rest of the skin — and the priest shall cleanse him, that is, he shall pronounce him cleansed of the suspicion of leprosy: not because he had leprosy, which he no longer has, but because there was no leprosy in that which had been touched in that bright and white color, that is, in that spot which had appeared. For while it was awaited whether the place would become lower and the hair there be turned into white, this did not happen; but rather the opposite. That spot, which before was bright and white, was found dark, that is, similar to the rest of the color, not bright. It was therefore not leprosy; for what appeared thus is a sign, not leprosy.

Nevertheless, even on this account, though cleansed of the suspicion of leprosy, 'he shall wash his garments,' because in that sign too there was something on account of which his garments had to be washed, and he shall be clean. Then it follows: But if the mark should be changed and altered in the skin after the priest has seen him, so as to cleanse him — that is, after the priest saw him healthy on the seventh day earlier, so as to cleanse him, that mark was changed, that is, that sign in the skin — and it be seen a second time by the priest — that is, after another seven days — and the priest see him, and behold the mark has changed in the skin — that is, it did not remain in that soundness in which he had seen it after the first seven days — then the priest shall defile him; it is leprosy.

Here now, since that which had been seen sound after the first seven days did not remain in its state, but was changed back into its former defect, it is pronounced leprosy, such that neither a lower place nor hair turned white need be awaited there. For since leprosy is not remarkable and defective except by its variation, this very thing — that a defective color should return to soundness and a sound color return to defect — is itself so remarkable that one need not there await what he had commanded to be awaited in the first case concerning the lower place and the whiteness of the hair, but by this very variability it is now without doubt leprosy. Then it follows: And if the mark of leprosy be in a man, he shall come to the priest.

And the priest shall see, and behold a white scar in the skin, and this has changed the hair to white, and there is in the scar something of the sound part of the living flesh. If from here we remove the 'and' — for it is placed according to the manner of the speech of the Scriptures — this will be the sense: And the priest shall see, and behold a white scar in the skin, and this has changed the hair white from the sound part of the living flesh in the scar. The order is: it has changed the hair to white in the scar from the sound part of the living flesh, that is: whereas the living and sound flesh has dark or black hair, this scar has white hair. It is an old leprosy in the skin of that color: and the priest shall defile him — that is, he shall pronounce him defiled — he shall not set him apart, because he is unclean.

This seems to say that, where the hair is found changed to white, of one color with the white defect of the skin, he is no longer set apart to be tested, nor is it awaited whether the place also become lower; but from this alone — that the skin is white, of a different color from the rest, and has white hair differing from the rest that are in the living and sound flesh — it is pronounced an old leprosy: 'old' for this reason, because it need no longer be tested through those twice-seven days. But if the sound color be restored and the white be changed — since he had said that when the whole had become white throughout all the skin it was for that very reason already clean, because there would no longer be variation there. Then he says: And on whatever day living color be seen in it, it shall be defiled: where he sufficiently shows that variation is condemned.

And on this account, from what he just said: But if the sound color be restored and be changed white, and he shall come to the priest; and the priest shall see, and behold the mark is changed to white, and the priest shall cleanse the mark: he is clean — we ought not to understand 'the sound color restored' as meaning that the color became sound, for it already was sound (though through it he was made unclean on account of the variation). He therefore said 'the sound color restored' to mean that it should become what it had been, that is, white, with the sound part perishing. For then again he will be clean when the whole is white, because there will be no variation there. But to take 'restored' for 'perishing' is a very unusual manner of speech; for he seems rather to have had to say: But if the white color be restored. Now he truly says:

'the sound restored and changed white,' as though he said: if the sound color be restored into white. What is it that, when he was speaking of leprosy of the head, he even called it a striking, although it occurs only in the color of either skin or hair, and its appearance shows lower than the rest of the skin, yet without pain and without any distress? Or did he wish to call that which is unclean a 'striking' in place of a plague, as though by this uncleanness the man had been struck? What does it mean that, when speaking of the leprosy of garments and of other things pertaining to men's uses, he says: [it may be] in a woolen garment or in a garment of tow, or in the warp, or in wool, or in linens, or in woolens — when he had already said above:

in a woolen garment or in a garment of tow? For tow is certainly linen. Or did he there wish 'garments' to be understood, but here anything woolen and anything of linen? For the coverings of beasts of burden, though they be of wool, are not garments; nor are nets garments, though they be of linen. He therefore wished to speak first specifically of garments, then generally of all things woolen and of linen. It is asked what he meant by: in every working skin, which some have interpreted as: in every finished skin. But the Greek does not say ergam(en)o dermati, but rather ergasimo, which word is also placed in the Book of Kingdoms, where Jonathan speaks to David: be in the field on the working day, that is, on the day on which work is done.

And on this account here too we ought to understand a 'working skin' as one in which work is done, that is, adapted for some work. For there are skins that are kept only for adornment, not for work. What does it mean that he says: in every working vessel of skin — except that which is made of skin, that is, in every leather vessel? But in this place he uses 'vessel' for what the Greeks call skeuos; for this is the general name of all utensils. But that which is called angeion is another thing; for this too the Latin tongue calls 'vas.' But that angeion is rather understood as a vessel that holds liquid. What does it mean that he says:

And whomever he that suffers a flux of seed touches, and has not washed his hands with water, he shall wash his garments and shall wash his body with water and shall be unclean until evening? For what he says is ambiguously placed: 'has not washed his hands with water,' as if after he has touched. But it is to be understood: whomever he touches with unwashed hands, that one whom he touches shall wash his garments, and the rest. What does it mean that, when he was prescribing how the high priest ought to enter into the sanctuary, which is within the veil, he says among other things: and he shall make entreaty for the holy things from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel and from their iniquities [and] concerning all their sins? How then 'for the holy things'?

— if 'from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel and from their iniquities concerning all their sins'? Or is it, because he did not say 'for the uncleannesses' of the children of Israel but 'from the uncleannesses,' that this is to be understood: 'he shall make entreaty for the holy ones from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel'? That is, for those who are holy from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, not consenting to their uncleannesses: not because entreaty was to be made for them alone, but because also for them, lest anyone should think they had been so holy that there was nothing on account of which entreaty should be made for them — although they were strangers to the uncleannesses of the children of Israel and to their iniquities. 'Concerning all their sins,' that is: what iniquities came from all their sins.

This sense too is possible: 'he shall make entreaty for the holy ones from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel,' that is, that this be understood as entreated for them — that they be kept safe from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel. But 'he shall make entreaty' (exorabit) cannot be taken except as what is said by another word, 'he shall propitiate.' Whence too it is called a 'propitiatory' (propitiatorium), which others have interpreted as a 'place of entreaty' (exoratorium); and in Greek it is called hilasterion. And what in this place the Latin renders 'he shall make entreaty for the holy ones,' the Greek has exilasetai, which is not understood except for sins. Whence it is written in the psalm: who is propitious to all your iniquities. Here therefore the more fitting sense is:

that the priest be understood to propitiate God even for those who are holy from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because, though they be so holy that they do not consent to the uncleannesses and iniquities of the children of Israel, they nevertheless have something on account of which God's propitiation is necessary for them. Indeed, in a certain Greek copy we find: and he shall make entreaty for the holy thing (sanctum), not 'for the holy ones,' and that 'holy thing' in the neuter gender, that is, to hagion. For it could be understood 'he shall make entreaty to the holy God,' and there would be no question; but how it can be understood 'he shall make entreaty for this holy thing' is difficult to say — unless perhaps that holy thing is whatever God is, since the Holy Spirit too, who is certainly God, is spoken of in the neuter gender in Greek as to pneuma to hagion.

And perhaps this is it — if indeed that codex is truer, which seemed more correct — exilasetai to hagion, that is, to pneuma to hagion, which in Latin cannot be said in the neuter gender. Although in three other codices, one Greek and two Latin, we found nothing but what we said above: 'he shall make entreaty for the holy ones.' This can also be taken thus, so that it be understood not for holy men, but for those things that are holy, that is, for the tabernacle itself and whatever in them had been sanctified to the Lord: so that this be 'he shall make entreaty for the holy things from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel' — he shall propitiate God for those things that have been sanctified to the Lord from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, because in their midst was the tabernacle. For thus it follows.

For when he had said: he shall make entreaty for the holy things from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel and from their iniquities concerning all their sins, he immediately subjoined: and thus he shall do to the tabernacle of testimony which was created among them in the midst of their uncleanness — so that for this that propitiation for the holy things seems necessary, that is, for the tabernacle and all things that are called holy in it. For also a little after this he says of the altar, that by the sprinkling of blood the priest should cleanse it and sanctify it from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel. And he shall complete making entreaty for the holy (sanctum). Is it 'he shall complete the holy'? Or 'making entreaty for the holy' according to what we said above? For here too it is said in Greek in the neuter gender, to hagion.

Does he then, making entreaty to the Lord, complete the holy, that is, perfectly sanctify what he sanctifies? Or does he 'complete' what he says, 'making entreaty for the holy,' that is, that holy thing which is to pneuma to hagion? Concerning the two goats, one to be immolated and the other to be sent away into the desert, which they call apopompaion, there is wont to be dispute, and by some the one to be immolated is taken in a good sense, but the one to be sent away in an evil sense. Yet this sense is not to be confirmed on the ground that the man, in whose hand the goat is sent away into the wilderness, is ordered, when he returns, to wash his garments and his body with water and so to enter the camp — as though this too were an indication why that goat should be taken in an evil sense, from whose contagion the man must be washed;

for he likewise says that he too must be washed who has received the flesh of the other goat and calf and burned it outside the camp — because he orders it to be done thus concerning that goat and the calf, from whose blood, when immolated, the sprinkling is made, and they are for sins. And on this account the distinction of these two goats is not to be treated carelessly in its allegorical signification. Likewise, when he had appointed the tenth day of the seventh month as a sabbath of sabbaths, on which the aforesaid purgation should be made by that one priest who succeeds the father, speaking of the same priest he says: he shall make entreaty for the holy of the holy. This now I know not whether it is to be taken otherwise than 'he shall make entreaty in the holy of the holy,' by a certain manner of speech — namely in that holy place into which the high priest alone entered.

which is within the veil, where the ark of the testimony was and the altar of incense. For he will not make entreaty to that place as to God, but because he will there make entreaty to God, it is thus put: he shall make entreaty for the holy of the holy. For this too is placed in the neuter gender in Greek: to pneuma to hagion. Or perhaps it is 'the Holy Spirit of the holy God,' that is, to hagion pneuma tou hagiou theou? Or rather is 'he shall make entreaty' (exorabit) said for 'by entreating he shall cleanse'? For thus he weaves the words together: and he shall make entreaty for the holy of the holy and the tabernacle of testimony and the altar he shall make entreaty, and for the priests and for the whole congregation he shall make entreaty. How then shall he make entreaty for the tabernacle and the altar, unless, as has been said, we understand 'by entreating he shall cleanse'? That which he says:

whoever shall kill a calf or a sheep or a she-goat in the camp, and whoever shall kill it outside the camp and shall not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of testimony — and in this he establishes a sin and threatens the doer — does not speak of those things which are slain for the use of eating, or for anything else, but of sacrifices. For he forbade private sacrifices, lest each one should in some manner dare to be a priest for himself, but should bring it there where they might be offered to God through the priest. For thus they would not sacrifice to vain things either; for this too he forewarned must be guarded against in that custom.