[Page 297.]—A goat for a sin-offering.] The directions for sin-offerings are found, Lev. iv. Num. xv. 22. From these passages it appears, that these offerings were prescribed in the case of sins of ignorance; unintentional, and at the time unobserved, violations of the Levitical law. The sacrifice of Helon in the text, appears to be represented by the author as a voluntary expression of remorse for his unjust conduct; a purpose very foreign from the design of the sin-offerings spoken of in the passages above quoted. It may also be observed, that the law takes no notice of the case of a priest incurring guilt: perhaps he might be included under the general term ruler.
Besides sin-offerings, (called הטאת) trespass-offerings אשם were also to be presented, Lev. v. vi. xiv. 12, 13. xix. 20. 22. Num. vi. 11, 12.; chiefly in cases of the breach of some social duty, and in addition to the penalties provided against the offence, but also for Levitical defilement and sins of ignorance. They differed chiefly in this, that a sin-offering was sometimes made for the whole congregation; a trespass-offering only for individuals; a bullock was never sacrificed for a trespass-offering, and the blood of the latter was sprinkled at the bottom of the altar, not dropped on the horns. Jennings’s Jew. Ant. ii. 332. Lightfoot, Works, i. 929. &c.
[Page 302.]—The ritual for the day of atonement will be found, Lev. xvi. xxiii. 27-32. Num. xxix. 7-11. What is described in the text beyond the warrant of these passages, is derived from Rabbinical authority. See the treatise Joma יומא i. e. the day κατ’ ἐξοχὴν) in Surenh. Mischna, ii. 206. et seq. Lightfoot, i. 961. It is doubtful whether a substitute were chosen to fill the place of the high-priest; for Josephus (xvii. 6. 4.) mentions an instance in which, having incurred pollution just before the day of atonement, it was necessary to create another for the rites of this day. As the high-priest had on this day to perform the office of a common priest, for which his splendid robes of ceremony would have been inconvenient, he went through this part of his duties in the ordinary sacerdotal dress of byssus, i. e. probably at this time cotton. The word by which the material of the priest’s dress is described in the Mosaic law is שש or בד, בוץ (byssus) not occurring in any of the books of Scripture before the captivity. As the Jewish ritual was formed in so great a degree upon that of Egypt, where the priests certainly wore linen garments, in a country early celebrated for its flax, (Exod. ix. 31.) it is probable that the garments of the priests were directed by the law to be made of this material, but that when the use of cotton was learnt, it was substituted for linen. This appears to have been the case in Egypt also; for Herodotus (ii. 81.) describes the priests as wearing κιθῶνας λινεόυς, but the mummies as being swathed, σινδόνος βυσσίνης τελαμῶσι (85.) while Pliny (N. H. xix. 1.) says, “Superior pars Ægypti, in Arabiam vergens, gignit fruticem quem gossypion vocant; vestes inde sacerdotibus Ægypti gratissimæ.”
[Page 306.]—He hurled the goat down.] It does not appear that the goat was to be thrown from the rock for the purpose of destroying it, but to be turned into the wilderness, (Jos. Ant. iii. 10. 3.) as an emblem of the sin of the people, pardoned and removed from sight. This is the obvious etymology of the name עו אול, caper abitus, or scape goat, as our translation renders it. The desert of Zuk appears to have no existence but in Rabbinical geography.
[Page 307.]—His meil.] The meil (מעיל)of the high-priest was worn immediately over his linen vest or tunic, and had bells and pomegranates round the borders; it had no sleeves, and sat close round the neck. The dress of the ordinary priests and the high-priest is described by Josephus, (Ant. iii. 7.) who also unfolds the spiritual meaning of every part.
[Page 314.]—The Feast of Tabernacles.]—The law for its observance is found Exod. xxiii. 16. (where it is called “the feast of ingathering at the end of the year.”) Lev. xxiii. 33-43. Deut. xvi. 16. Jos. Ant. iv. 8. 12. It was one of the greatest of all the Jewish festivals. Jos. Ant. viii. 4, The treatise entitled Succah in the Mishna, (Surenh. ii. 259.) contains the traditions of the Rabbins. See Lightfoot, i. 974. Reland, p. 477. It was at once a memorial of the wandering in the desert, and a thanksgiving for the close of harvest.
The Jews, both in ancient and modern times, (Jos. Ant. iii. 10. xiii. 13. 5.) have interpreted the command in Lev. xxiii. 40. “And ye shall take unto you the boughs of goodly trees,” to mean branches of the citron. They make them into a bundle with the other boughs there mentioned, though it is probable that the goodly trees are pointed out as the materials of which the booths were to be constructed. Comp. Nehem, viii. 18. The Samaritans (Basnage, History of the Jews, vii. c. 26.) and the Karaite Jews (Reland, 485.) appear to understand the words of the law in this sense.
[Page 317.]—Drawing of water from Siloah.] This was evidently practised in our Saviour’s time; who, according to his usual custom of making passing events subservient to purposes of instruction, “cried in the temple on the last the great day of the feast, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” John vii. 37. Which words, according to the Evangelist, referred to the effusion of the Holy Spirit. It is probable that the custom originally alluded to the rain: for, according to the Mishna, they began to pray for rain after the Feast of Tabernacles, and continued to do so till the Passover. Surenhus. ii. 356. It is doubtful whether the drawing the water were performed, as here represented, on every day of the festival: from the Evangelist we should rather conclude that it was only on the last. The Rabbinical traditions are discordant.
[Page 319.]—I know not on what authority it is related that the people showered their leaves and fruit on the high-priest; and I suspect that it may have originated from a misapprehension of a passage in Josephus, (Ant. xiii. 13. 5.) in which the Jews are said to have done this as a mark of their displeasure against their high-priest Alexander. Another instance is mentioned in the Talmud, in which the people testified in the same way their displeasure against some one who had performed his office carelessly, Lightfoot, i. 976.
[Page 321.]—Dancing at the Feast of Tabernacles.] See Lightfoot, i. 978. and comp. 2 Sam. vi. 14.