Page:06.CBOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.B.vol.6.LesserProphets.djvu/1526



Verse 14
Mal 1:14“And cursed is he who deceives whilst there is in his flock a male animal, and he who vows and sacrifices to the Lord that which is corrupt; for I am a great King, saith Jehovah of hosts, and my name is feared among the nations.” This verse is not attached adversatively to Mal 1:13, but Vav is the simple copula, for the question in Mal 1:13 has a negative sense, or is to be answered by “No.” To this answer there is attached the curse upon all the Israelites who offer such sacrifices to God as have not the characteristics required by the law. Two cases are mentioned. In the first place, that when according to the law a male animal ought to have been sacrificed, the person offering the sacrifice offered a female, i.e., one of less value, under the pretence that he did not possess or could not procure a male. The prophet calls this nâkhal, cheating. The second case refers to votive sacrifices; for which as zebhach shelâmı̄m (Lev 22:21) both male and female animals could be used, though only such as were free from faults, inasmuch as animals having any moshchâth are declared in Lev 22:25 to be not acceptable. Moshchâth, according to the Masoretic pointing, is the feminine of the hophal participle for משׁחתתּ, like משׁרת for משׁרתת in 1Ki 1:15 (cf. Ewald, §188, b, and Olshausen, p. 393), according to which we should have to think of a female animal in bad condition. This pointing, however, is probably connected with the view still defended by Ewald, Maurer, and Hitzig, that the words ונדר וזבח are a continuation of the circumstantial clause וישׁ וגו, and that Mal 1:14 only refers to votive sacrifices: Cursed is the deceiver who has in his flock a male, but vows and sacrifices a corrupt female. This view, however, is evidently opposed to the meaning of the words. If לונדר were a circumstantial clause, we should expect והוּא נדר. Moreover, since even female animals were admissible for votive sacrifices, the vowing and offering of a female animal could not be blamed in itself, and therefore what was reprehensible was not that a female animal was vowed and offered in sacrifice by any one, but that, instead of offering a faultless animal (tâmı̄m), he presented a blemished one. We must therefore follow the ancient translators and many commentators, who read moshchâth (masc.), according to which the curse is pronounced upon any one who vowed a sacrifice and afterwards redeemed his vow with a faulty and unsuitable animal.