(15) Shall take some of the log of oil.--This he had to do with his right hand, which is actually expressed in the ancient Chaldee paraphrase.
And pour it into the palm of his own lefthand.--Better, and he shall pour it into the palm of the priest's left hand, that is, the priest who has hitherto performed the ceremony of cleansing the leper now takes some of the log of oil, and puts it into the left hand of his fellow priest. This is not only distinctly declared in the canons which obtained during the second Temple, but is expressed in the text, which is seen from the literal translation we have given of the clause in question. The same priest, however, was allowed to pour it into the palm of his own hands. To express this view, which the translators of the Authorised Version espoused, they omitted the word priest, which is to be found in the original, and substituted his own, which is not in the original.
Verses 15-18. - And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand. This ceremony is altogether peculiar to this purification. The joint use of blood and oil is not singular (see Leviticus 8:30), but elsewhere there is no sprinkling of the oil... seven times before the Lord, and in the consecration of priests there was no anointing of the different members with oil as well as with blood. The Mishua (as before cited) continues the description of the ceremony as follows: - "The priest now takes from the log of oil and pours it into the palm of his colleague, though if he poured it into his own it were valid. He dips his finger and sprinkles seven times towards the holy of holies, dipping each time he sprinkles. He goes before the leper, and on the spot where he had put the blood he puts the oil, as it is written, 'Upon the blood of the trespass offering.' And the remnant of the oil that is in the priest's hand, he pours on the head of him that is cleansed, for an atonement; if he so puts it, he is atoned for, but if not, he is not atoned for. So Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Jochanan, the son of Nuri, saith, This is only the remnant of the ordinance, whether it be done or not, the atonement is made; but they impute it to him (the priest), as if he had not made atonement." The double sprinkling with blood and oil betokened dedication as in the case of the priests, the blood specially denoting reconciliation, and the oil the strengthening power of God by which the new life was to be led.
14:10-32 The cleansed leper was to be presented to the Lord, with his offerings. When God has restored us to enjoy public worship again, after sickness, distance, or otherwise, we should testify our thanksgiving by our diligent use of the liberty. And both we and our offerings must be presented before the Lord, by the Priest that made us clean, even our Lord Jesus. Beside the usual rites of the trespass-offering, some of the blood, and some of the oil, was to be put upon him that was to be cleansed. Wherever the blood of Christ is applied for justification, the oil of the Spirit is applied for sanctification; these two cannot be separated. We have here the gracious provision the law made for poor lepers. The poor are as welcome to God's altar as the rich. But though a meaner sacrifice was accepted from the poor, yet the same ceremony was used for the rich; their souls are as precious, and Christ and his gospel are the same to both. Even for the poor one lamb was necessary. No sinner could be saved, had it not been for the Lamb that was slain, and hath redeemed us to God with his blood.
And the priest shall take some of the log of oil,.... With his right hand, as the Targum of Jonathan adds:
and pour it into the palm of his own left hand: but in the original text it is, "pour it into the palm of the priest's left hand": and it is a question, whether he or another priest is meant; according to Aben Ezra, the oil was to be poured into the hand of the priest that was cleansing the leper, and which, he thinks, is plain from what follows; but Gersom thinks it is better to understand it of another priest, since it is not said into his own hand, but into the hand of the priest; and the Misnah (u) is clear for it, he (the priest) takes of the log of oil and pours it into the palm of his fellow (priest), but if he pours it into his own palm it is sufficient.
(u) Ib. sect. 10. so Maimon. Mechosre Capharah, ut supra, (c. 4. sect. 2.) & Bartenora, in Misn. Negaim, ib.
And pour it into the palm of his own left hand.--Better, and he shall pour it into the palm of the priest's left hand, that is, the priest who has hitherto performed the ceremony of cleansing the leper now takes some of the log of oil, and puts it into the left hand of his fellow priest. This is not only distinctly declared in the canons which obtained during the second Temple, but is expressed in the text, which is seen from the literal translation we have given of the clause in question. The same priest, however, was allowed to pour it into the palm of his own hands. To express this view, which the translators of the Authorised Version espoused, they omitted the word priest, which is to be found in the original, and substituted his own, which is not in the original.
and pour it into the palm of his own left hand: but in the original text it is, "pour it into the palm of the priest's left hand": and it is a question, whether he or another priest is meant; according to Aben Ezra, the oil was to be poured into the hand of the priest that was cleansing the leper, and which, he thinks, is plain from what follows; but Gersom thinks it is better to understand it of another priest, since it is not said into his own hand, but into the hand of the priest; and the Misnah (u) is clear for it, he (the priest) takes of the log of oil and pours it into the palm of his fellow (priest), but if he pours it into his own palm it is sufficient.
(u) Ib. sect. 10. so Maimon. Mechosre Capharah, ut supra, (c. 4. sect. 2.) & Bartenora, in Misn. Negaim, ib.