Leviticus 22:10

22:10 “‘No lay person ¹  may eat anything holy. Neither a priest’s lodger ²  nor a hired laborer may eat anything holy,

Leviticus 22:12

22:12 If a priest’s daughter marries a lay person, ³  she may not eat the holy contribution offerings, ⁴ 

Leviticus 10:1

Nadab and Abihu

10:1 Then ⁵  Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his fire pan and put fire in it, set incense on it, and presented strange fire ⁶  before the Lord, which he had not commanded them to do.

Leviticus 22:13

22:13 but if a priest’s daughter is a widow or divorced, and she has no children so that she returns to live in ⁷  her father’s house as in her youth, ⁸  she may eat from her father’s food, but no lay person may eat it.

[22:10]  ¹ tn Heb “No stranger” (so KJV, ASV), which refers here to anyone other than the Aaronic priests. Some English versions reverse the negation and state positively: NIV “No one outside a priest’s family”; NRSV “Only a member of a priestly family”; CEV “Only you priests and your families.”

[22:10]  ² tn Heb “A resident [תּוֹשָׁב (toshav) from יָשַׁב (yashav, “to dwell, to reside”)] of a priest.” The meaning of the term is uncertain. It could refer to a “guest” (NIV) or perhaps “bound servant” (NRSV; see B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 149). In the translation “lodger” was used instead of “boarder” precisely because a boarder would be provided meals with his lodging, the very issue at stake here.

[22:12]  ³ tn Heb “And a daughter of a priest, if she is to a man, a stranger” (cf. the note on v. 10 above).

[22:12]  ⁴ tn Heb “she in the contribution of the holy offerings shall not eat.” For “contribution [offering]” see the note on Lev 7:14 and the literature cited there. Cf. NCV “the holy offerings”; TEV, NLT “the sacred offerings.”

[10:1]  ⁵ tn Although it has been used elsewhere in this translation as an English variation from the ubiquitous use of vav in Hebrew, in this instance “then” as a rendering for vav is intended to show that the Nadab and Abihu catastrophe took place on the inauguration day described in Lev 9. The tragic incident in Lev 10 happened in close temporal connection to the Lord’s fire that consumed the offerings at the end of Lev 9. Thus, for example, the “sin offering” male goat referred to in Lev 10:16-19 is the very one referred to in Lev 9:15.

[10:1]  ⁶ tn The expression “strange fire” (אֵשׁ זָרָה, ’esh zarah) seems imprecise (cf. NAB “profane fire”; NIV “unauthorized fire”; NRSV “unholy fire”; NLT “a different kind of fire”) and has been interpreted numerous ways (see the helpful summary in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 132-33). The infraction may have involved any of the following or a combination thereof: (1) using coals from someplace other than the burnt offering altar (i.e., “unauthorized coals” according to J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:598; cf. Lev 16:12 and cf. “unauthorized person” אִישׁ זָר (’ish zar) in Num 16:40 [17:5 HT], NASB “layman”), (2) using the wrong kind of incense (cf. the Exod 30:9 regulation against “strange incense” קְטֹרֶת זָרָה (qÿtoreh zarah) on the incense altar and the possible connection to Exod 30:34-38), (3) performing an incense offering at an unprescribed time (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 59), or (4) entering the Holy of Holies at an inappropriate time (Lev 16:1-2).

[22:13]  ⁷ tn Heb “to”; the words “live in” have been supplied in the translation for clarity.

[22:13]  ⁸ tn Heb “and seed there is not to her and she returns to the house of her father as her youth.” The mention of having “no children” appears to imply that her children, if she had any, should support her; this is made explicit by NLT’s “and has no children to support her.”