41 (Lv 13,2). If a man had a scar of a white sign on his skin, and there was a touch of leprosy on the skin of his color. The text then says, as an exposition, what he had said before so that it could be understood. He had said this: If you had a white scar on your skin. So that we do not think it refers to a scar, as is usually the sign of a healed wound, it tells us that it refers to color when it adds: And there would be a touch of leprosy on the skin of its color. Leaving now what the author understands as a scar, it is a vice of color. With respect to what is called the leprosy touch, it must be said that it is not about the color being felt by touch, but that it is called a leprosy touch as if the person or his body was touched by leprosy, it was stained or flawed It is as they say: "The fever attacked him or he did not attack him." Finally, it is called touch to the own stain and it is always designated as such. That is why some of our translators have not translated "touch", but "stain". Naturally, using this word, the text seems to have a clearer meaning. But the Greek text may not have aften, that is, touch, but?, That is, stain. Therefore, amomon means immaculate. Although Scripture does not usually call amomon only to what refers to color, but to what is clean of all victo. Therefore, the Scripture does not want to be understood by momon the stain of color, but the stain of all vice. I could call spílon what refers only to color. The Apostle used this word, when he says of the Church: It has neither stain nor wrinkle (Eph. 5,27). But the author of Leviticus used neither momon nor spílon, but afén, toque, word that even in the Greek language is little used for the colors and, nevertheless, the Seventies had no difficulty in using it. Why should Latin translators have it? As for the phrase: Scar of a signal, or it is so called because it means something, or rather because it distinguishes the person from the others by a signal, because it makes it striking.

42 (Lv 13,3). What do the words mean: The priest will see it and stain it? Is it not he who the patient must come to cure him? Manchará is equivalent to "declare that he is stained", if the priest sees in him the things that the Scripture says about the stain of leprosy.

43 (Lv 13,4-7). But if in the skin of its color there was a bright white and its visible place was no more sunk than the skin. In the words bright white we have to understand "touch" (tactus), that is, it is a stain of color, not hair. Then he says: But if again the significance in the skin has changed. Now it is called meaning to what before the Latin text called signum (signal) (Cf Lv 13, 2). The Greek text, both before and now, uses the same word semasían.

44 (Lv 13,5-6). The priest will separate him for seven days a second time, and the priest will examine him on the seventh day a second time, and if the touch is dark and the touch has not spread on the skin, the priest will purify it, it is a sign. This means that "the priest will declare it pure", because it is not leprosy, but a sign.

45 (Lv 13,7-8). But if the significance was changed again in the skin, after the priest had examined it to purify it, and it appeared again to the priest and the priest examined it and verified that the significance was changed in the skin, and the priest would stain it: leprosy. Here, too, "it will stain" is equivalent to "declare it stained". "And" (in the last sentence) is an addition to the language of Scripture. It seems that the text advises that, when the white color has been seen alone and bright, different from the healthy color, the priest examines it again to declare that it is leprosy, that is, that it smears the man declaring him a leper, but only if it is checked that also the hair has turned white and the place of the skin where the white color is is more sunken. And he continues: But if in the skin of its color there was bright white -that is, if the touch were bright white: it calls the stain like that- and its visible place was no more sunk than the skin and the hair would not have turned white, but it is dark - that is, the hair, which is not white - and the priest will separate the affected person for seven days. And on the seventh day the priest will check the touch-the stain that-and if the touch remains before him, but the touch has not spread across the skin - that is, it has no different color or is different from the skin. Then he has healed what was sick.

But the text still examines health for another seven days, and therefore says: - And the priest will separate him for seven days a second time - another seven days - and the priest will examine him on the seventh day a second time and if the touch is dark - since it is not white and bright and therefore of the same color as the healthy color - the touch has not spread through the skin - as it was said a little above, that is, it is not different of the rest of the skin - and the priest will purify it (Lv 13, 4.5.6), that is, he will declare that he is free from the suspicion of leprosy; not because he had leprosy, which he no longer has, but because he has not existed, since in that bright and white color of the touch, of the stain that had appeared, when he hoped that the place had sunk more and the hair of that one The place had turned white, it did not happen that way, but the touch, which had previously been bright and white, became rather dark, similar to the rest of the color of the skin, not shiny. Therefore, it was not leprosy. What appeared is a sign, it is not leprosy. However, even though he is free from the suspicion of leprosy, he will "wash his clothes," because in that sign there was also something that motivated them to wash their clothes. And it will be clean (Lv 13,6).

46 (Lv 13,7.8). Then he continues: But if the meaning were again spread on the skin after the priest had examined it to purify it - that is, if after examining the priest on the seventh day and seeing him healthy, to declare him pure, that meaning spread on the skin , the stain on the skin - and it was examined a second time by the priest - after another seven days -, and the priest examined him and verified that the meaning had spread on the skin - that is, he did not continue with that state of health in which I had seen him after the first seven days - and the priest will stain him: it is leprosy. In this case, as what had been healthy after the first seven days did not remain in his state, but was changed to evil first, it is declared as it is leprosy. It is no longer expected in this case, or that the place is more sunken or that the hair has turned white. Since leprosy is not striking or vicious, but only its change, the fact of moving from diseased to healthy color and returning from healthy color to diseased color is so striking that in this case we would not have to wait for what in the first case had been ordered to wait for the place of the skin that was more sunken and the whiteness of the hair. For the mere fact of the change there would be no doubt that it would be leprosy.

47 (Lv 13,9-10). Then he continues: If a man had a leprosy, he will come to the priest, and the priest will examine him, and if there was a white scar on the skin, and this changed the hair making it white and from the healthyness of the living flesh there would be changed in the scar. If we remove the "and" (from the last sentence) of the previous text, put there according to the way of expressing oneself in the Scriptures, we have the following meaning: The priest will examine it, and if there is a white scar on the skin and this changed the hair making it white from the healthiness of the living flesh in the scar. The order is: He changed the white hair in the scar from the health of the living flesh, that is, as the living and healthy flesh has dark and black hair, so this scar has white. And it continues: A rooted leprosy is in the skin of its color; and the priest shall stain him-he shall pronounce him stained-he will not separate him, since he is unclean. The text seems to mean that when hair is changed in white with the same color as white hair due to skin disease, it is no longer necessary to separate the patient to examine him, nor do we have to wait until the place of the skin is more sunken. Due to the fact that the skin is white, of a different color than the rest and that it has white hair, of a different color than the rest of the living and healthy flesh, it is declared that there is a rooted leprosy. It is rooted leprosy, because you no longer have to examine it during those fourteen days. And it continues: But if the healthy color were restored and it became white. This is said because it had been said that all the white color spread all over the skin was already pure for this same reason, since there would have been no change there. And he continues: But at any time when he sees a bright color in him, he will be stained (Lv 13,11). Here it is clear that the change is disapproved. And therefore, in relation to what has just been said: But if the healthy color were restored and turned white, and it will come to the priest, and the priest will examine it and if the touch has turned white, and the priest will purify the affected: it is pure (Lv 13,16.4), we should not believe that the healthy color was restored so that healthy color would result; because it was already the color by which it became impure because of the change. Thus, he says that his healthy color was restored so that it was what it had been, that is, white color, once the healthy color was lost. In this case it will be pure again, having been all white, because there will be no change there. But to understand "restored" as "lost" is something unusual. It seems that it should rather have said: But if the white color had been restored. Now, on the other hand, he says: if the healthy color had been restored and he had turned white, as if he wanted to say: if the healthy color had been restored by turning white.

48 (Lv 13,30). When talking about leprosy of the head, why is it also called blow, when it depends only on the color of the skin or the hair and if its appearance appears more sunken than the rest of the skin it is painless and without any discomfort ? Did you want to call a blow instead of a wound to this which is impure, as if man were struck by this impurity?

49 (Lv 13,47-48). When speaking of the leprosy of clothing and other things pertaining to human uses, what do these words of Scripture mean: Either in a woolen dress or in a gown of bast or in the worsted or in the wool or in the things of linen or things of wool, when I had said before: in a woolen dress or in a gown of bast? Because a thing of tow is also linen. Or did the author want to talk about clothes and here about anything else wool or linen? The covers of the juices are not dressed, although they are made of wool; Neither the nets are clothed, though they are made of linen. Therefore, he first spoke in a concrete way about the dresses, and then in a general way about all things of wool and linen.

50 (Lv 13,48). We ask why Scripture says: In all skin of work. Other authors translate: In all made-up leather. But the Greek text does not say: ergasméno dérmati, but: ergasimo, a word that also appears in the Book of Kings, where Jonathan says to David: Be in the field on a workday (1R 20,19.), on a day when you make a work. And for that reason also here we must think that the skin of work is that in which a work is done, accommodated to some work. Well, there are skins that only serve for adornment, not for work.

51 (Lv 13,49). What does it mean: in any object of skin work, but what is made of skin, any object of skin? The author calls here object to what the Greeks call skeuos. And this is a general term to indicate any utensil. Different thing is what is called aggeion, because in Latin also this word is translated by object. But aggeion Corresponds rather to an object that contains something liquid.

52 (Lv 15,11). What do these words mean? And whoever touches the one who suffers the flow of semen, without having washed his hands in water, will wash his clothes and wash his body in water and be impure until evening? Because the phrase: without having washed your hands in water, is placed in an ambiguous way, as if to say that it had touched him later. The meaning is this: Whomever he touches, without washing his hands, the individual he has touched will wash his clothes, etc.

53 (Lv 16,16). What do the following words mean, when the Lord commands how the high priest should enter the saint, who is behind the veil: And he will make atonement for the saints from the impurities of the children of Israel and their injustices [and] all your sins? How will he make atonement for the saints, if he makes it from the impurities of the children of Israel and from the injustices of all their sins? As it does not say in favor of (pro) the impurities of the children of Israel, but De (ab) impurities, shall it be understood that it will make atonement for the saints from the impurities of the children of Israel? That is, by those who are holy, free from the impurities of the children of Israel, who do not consent to their impurities; not because the expiation had to be made only for them, but because it had to be done for them, but that no one should believe that they were so holy, that there was nothing in them for which the expiation should be made, even if they were oblivious to the impurities of the children of Israel and their injustices. The phrase: Of all your sins, it means the injustices that came from all your sins.

The meaning of the phrase: He will make atonement for the saints of the impurities of the children of Israel, it can also be this: it is a question of making atonement for them, so that they will be protected from the impurities of the children of Israel . But it will make the atonement can not be taken in any other sense than in the one that means the verb will make propitious. That is why it is also called a propitiatory to what others translate as an expiatory offering, which in Greek is called ilastérion. And what the Latin author translates in this passage: he will make expiation (exorabit) for the saints, corresponds to the Greek exilásetai, which only applies to sins. That is why it is said in the psalm: That it is propitious in all your iniquities (Ps. 102,3). According to this, the most accurate sense of the passage is to think that the priest also makes God propitious in favor of those who are holy, free from the impurities of the children of Israel, and that, even if they are so holy that they do not consent to the impurities of the children of Israel and in the injustices, nevertheless, they have something for which it is necessary to have God propitious.

But in a Greek text we find: And he will make atonement for the saint, not for the saints, and the word "holy" is certainly in the neuter gender (sanctum), which corresponds to the Greek tò agion. In effect, it could be understood: He will make atonement to the holy God, and there would be no problem. But it would be difficult to say how it could be understood: for the atonement to this holy, unless it is understood that which is holy, whatever it may be, which is God, because it is also Holy Spirit, which is certainly God. In Greek it is said, in neutral gender, tò pneuma tò agion. And perhaps - if that codex that seemed more correct is truer - the phrase exilásetai tò agion would be equivalent to tò pneuma tò agion, which in Latin can not be said in neutral gender. In spite of everything, in three other codices, one Greek and two Latin, we have only found what we said before, that is: He will make atonement for the saints, and this phrase can also be interpreted in the sense that it does not refer to the holy men, but to holy things, such as the tabernacle and anything else that was consecrated to the Lord in those holy things. The meaning of the phrase: He will make atonement for the saints to free them from the impurities of the children of Israel, it would be: He will make God propitiate to the things consecrated to the Lord, freeing them from the impurities of the children of Israel, because the tabernacle was in the midst of them. For the text goes on like this: after saying: He will make atonement for the saints of the impurities of the children of Israel and the injustices of all their sins, immediately adds: The same will do with the tabernacle of the testimony, which has been made between they, in the midst of their impurities (Lv 16,16). Thus, that appropriation for holy things seems necessary for the tabernacle and for all the things that are called holy in it. For a little later it is said, about the altar, that the priest should purify it with the sprinkling of blood and sanctify it by freeing it from the impurities of the children of Israel.

54 (Lv 16,20). And he will fulfill expiating the saint. Will it fill the saint? Or will he expiate the saint, according to what we said before? For here also in Greek is tò agion in neutral gender. So, doing the atonement to the Lord, will he fulfill the saint, that is, he will perfectly sanctify what he has sanctified? Or will it be fulfilled at the expiation of the saint, that is to say, that holy thing which is tò pneuma tò agion (the Holy Spirit)?

55 (Lv 16,8.10.19-20). About the two goats, one that had to be immolated and the other that had to be sent to the desert, called by the Greeks apopompaion, there is usually discussion, and some say that the one that should be immolated must be interpreted in a good way, and the that had to be sent to the desert must be interpreted in the bad. But this interpretation can not be sustained, precisely because when the man who brought the goat with his hand to the desert returns, he is ordered to wash his clothes and his body with water and thus enter the camp (Cf Lv 16,26) as if this were also an indication for interpreting in a bad sense the matter of the goat, from whose contagion man had to be cleansed; but it is also said that those who take the flesh of the other goat and the bull and wash them outside the camp must be washed, because it is commanded that this be done with the goat and the bull, and that once immolated it is done sprinkling with their blood (Cf Lv 9,8-12) and offering both as a sacrifice for sins. And for that reason, the distinction between these two goats must be considered carefully from the allegorical meaning. Similarly, when the tenth day of the seventh month is established as Saturday of Saturdays (Cf Lv 16,29-32) so that the one priest who succeeds his father would do the purification mentioned above, the Scripture says, when speaking of that priest: He will make atonement for the saint of holy. And I do not know if the phrase should be interpreted in any other way than this one: "He will make atonement in the saint's saint", thinking that it is a way of expressing himself. He will do it, then, in that holy place where only the high priest entered, a place that was beyond the veil, where was the ark of the covenant and the altar of incense. Naturally, he will not make the atonement of that place as if it were God, but he will make the atonement there to God, that is why it is said: He will make atonement for the saint of the saint. In Greek, this phrase is also placed in neutral gender: tò agion tou agíou. Or is it perhaps the Holy Spirit of the holy God, that is to say: tò agion pneuma tou agíou zeou? Or will "make atonement" not be rather "making atonement purify"? Because the words are united like this: And he will make atonement for the saint of the saint and for the tabernacle of the testimony and will make atonement for the altar and make atonement for the priests and for the whole assembly (Lv 16,33). And how will he make the atonement to the tabernacle and altar more than, as we have said, interpreting the word thus: "making the purification purify"?

56 (Lv 17.3.4). There is a text that says: Whoever kills a bull or a sheep or a goat inside the camp and who kills them outside the camp and does not take them to the entrance of the tabernacle of the testimony. In what has just been said there is a sin and a punishment is threatened to whoever does it. And it does not refer to animals that are killed for food or for similar things, but to offer them in sacrifice. Private sacrifices are therefore forbidden, so that no one dares to be a priest in any way for himself, but to bring the victims where they are offered to God through the priest. In this way they will avoid making sacrifices to the vanities, since this has also been tried to be avoided with that custom. Therefore, since it was not lawful to offer sacrifices except in the tabernacle to which the temple later happened - therefore, the king of Israel, Jeroboam even dared to make two calves for the people to offer sacrifices to them, so that, moved by the necessity of this law, were not seduced by the temple those who belonged to his kingdom, while they went to Jerusalem to offer their sacrifices in the temple of God, and in this action was condemned by the Lord (Cf 1R 12,28-30), we can ask with all reason why Elijah could have offered sacrifices lawfully outside the temple of God, when he not only impelled fire from heaven, but he overcame the prophets of demons (Cf 1R 18,36-39). It seems to me that it does not defend itself with any reason other than that with which it also defends the action of Abraham with which it intended to sacrifice his son by order of God (Cf Gn 22,3-10). Because when the one who makes the law commands to do something that has been prohibited in the law itself, the mandate itself is considered law, because it is proper to the author of the law. Besides the sacrifice, other miracles could not be missed by means of which the prophets of the sacred forests would be overcome and defeated. But the spirit of God, which had been in Elijah with respect to everything he did in this matter, can not go against the law, since he is the giver of the law.

57 (Lv 17,10-12). What does the Scripture say when it prohibits eating the blood: The soul of all flesh is its blood? The entire passage explains it this way: If any man of the children of Israel or any of the proselytes living among you eats any blood, I will put my face on the soul that eats blood and exterminate it from its people. For the soul of all flesh is its blood. And I gave it to you to make atonement for your souls; for his blood will serve as expiation for the soul. That is why I said to the children of Israel: "No one among you will eat blood; nor the proselyte who lives among you will eat blood. " If we say that blood is the soul of an animal, must we also admit that blood is the soul of man? No way. Then, why does not the text say: The soul of all flesh of an animal is its blood, but says: The soul of all flesh is its blood? It is evident that the word "of all flesh" also includes the flesh of man. But, since there is something vital in the blood, because through it one lives, especially in the actual flesh, and the blood is diffused through the whole body through all the veins, is it perhaps called soul to the own body life, not the life that comes out of the body, but the life that ends with death? With this expression we say that this life is temporary, not eternal; mortal, not immortal, being immortal the nature of the soul, which is taken by the angels from the bosom of Abraham, and to which it is said: Today you will be with me in paradise (Lc 23,43), and that it burned in the torments of hell (Cf Lc 16,23). According to this meaning for which we also call this temporary life a soul, the Apostle said the following: For I do not consider my soul valuable to me (Acts 20,24). Here he wants to show that he was willing even to die for the Gospel. Because, according to the meaning by which the soul is called what comes out of the body, the Apostle made it all the more valuable the greater merit it gained him. There are other expressions similar to these. Thus, this temporal life is contained mostly in the body by blood. But what do these words mean: I have given it to you next to the altar of God, to make atonement for your soul? (Lv 17,11) It is as if the soul made atonement for the soul. Does blood atonement for blood perhaps, as if we had to be preoccupied with our blood when we want to make atonement for our soul? This is an absurdity.

But it is much more absurd for the blood of an animal to make atonement for the soul of man, which can not die, when the Scripture expressly says in the Epistle to the Hebrews that the blood of the victims was of no avail to make atonement God for the sins of men, but it had meant something that would benefit. The text reads as follows: For it is impossible for the blood of goats and bulls to remove sins (Hb 10,4). Now, since for our soul makes the atonement that mediator was prefigured by all those sacrifices offered for sins, it is clear that soul is what is meant by the soul.

The sign is usually designated by the name of the thing signified. Thus, the Scripture says: The seven ears are seven years. It does not say: they mean seven years. And the seven cows are seven years (Gn 41,46), and many other similar examples. According to this, it is said: And the stone was Christ (1Co 10,4). It is not said: The stone meant Christ, but it is said as if it were this that evidently was not by essence, but by the meaning. So also the blood, since it means the soul, by a certain vital matter, is called soul mysteriously. In case anyone thinks that the soul of an animal is blood, there is no reason to argue about this matter. One should only carefully avoid thinking that the soul of man, who gives life to human flesh and is rational, is considered blood. This error must be refuted by all means. On the other hand, we have to look for expressions in which content means the continent. Thus, for example, as the soul is contained in the body by the blood - because if the blood spills, it leaves the body - the soul is better signified by the blood, and the blood receives its name from it. Thus, the church is called the place where the church meets, for men are the church, of whom it is said: and presenting it as a glorious church. But with this same name the house of prayer is designated. And this is witnessed by the Apostle himself, when he says: Do you not have houses to eat and drink? Do you despise the church of God? (1Co 11,22) The daily use of speaking has kept it from saying: Go to church or flee to church more than from one who has gone or fled to that place and its walls on which the congregation of the church is enclosed. It is also written: Blood is shed who removes the wages of the day laborer (Si 31 34,27). Here blood is called wages, because wages sustain life, which is called blood.

But if the Lord says: If you do not eat my flesh and you do not drink my blood, you will not have life in you (Jn 6,53), what does it mean that the people are forbidden so insistently to take the blood of the sacrifices offered for sins, if with those sacrifices? Was this unique sacrifice meant to reach the true remission of sins? Well, not only is no one forbidden to take the blood of this sacrifice as food, but it is even exhorted to all who want to have life to drink it. It is necessary to investigate, therefore, what it means that in the law man is forbidden to eat the blood and be ordered to pour it out for God. Because, about the nature of the soul, because it is signified by the blood, we have already said what we thought convenient.

58 (Lv 18,7.8). You will not discover the nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother; for it is their nakedness. It is forbidden to have sexual relations with one's mother. That is what nudity consists of, of the father and the mother. Because later it also prohibits this in relation to the stepmother: You will not discover the nakedness of your father's wife; for it is the same nakedness of your father. Before it was exposed how the nudity of the mother was the nakedness of both, father and mother. But in the nudity of the stepmother there is only the nakedness of the father.

59 (Lv 18,9). You will not discover the nakedness of your sister, daughter of your father or daughter of your mother, born at home or born outside the home: it is their nakedness. The one born at home is understood as the father's daughter. The one born outside the home is understood as the mother's daughter, if perhaps the mother had had it from a previous husband and had come with her home when she married her father. The Scripture advises not to discover the nakedness of his sister. Here seems not to have forbidden, and almost overlooked, the concubus with the sister born of both parents. Because the text does not say: You will not discover the nakedness of your sister, daughter of your father and mother, but of your father or your mother. But who does not see that also that is forbidden with much more reason? Because if it is not lawful to discover the nakedness of a sister, daughter of either of the two parents, how much less the daughter of both! Why does it also prohibit concubinage with one's nieces, saying about the son or about the daughter: You will not discover the nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife (Lv 18,11). If what had been said had stopped here, we would understand that the concubinage with the stepmother's daughter, born by her from a previous husband and not the sister of the individual who is forbidden, whether daughter of the father, would also have been forbidden. , whether daughter of the mother. But when adding: Daughter of your father, who is your sister. You will not discover her nakedness, (Lv 18,11) it is shown that this prohibition was made because of the sister, since she had been the daughter of the father and the stepmother, of whom we had already spoken before. Or the author wanted to prohibit it again more clearly, because before it was very dark? The Scripture does this many times.

60 (Lv 18,14). You will not discover the nakedness of your father's brother and you will not go near his wife. Here is what it means: You will not discover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, your uncle, adding: You will not go near his wife. Naturally, in the uncle's wife the author wanted the uncle's nudity to be interpreted, as in the father's wife he wanted the father's nakedness to be understood.

61 (Lv 18,16). You will not discover the nakedness of your brother's wife: it is your brother's nakedness. We wonder if this is forbidden, living the brother or when he has already died, and the problem is not small. For if we were to say that the Scripture has spoken of the wife of the living brother, resorting to a general precept, which forbids a man to approach his neighbor's wife, obviously this would also be understood (Cf Ex 20,17). Why then distinguish in a very careful way with particular prohibitions these people, calling domestic, from the others? Because what it prohibits about the woman of the father, that is to say, of the stepmother, refers to while the father lives and not when he has already died. Well, if the father lives, who does not see that it is much more forbidden, if the wife of any other man is forbidden to be stained with adultery? Therefore, it seems that it refers to those people who, not having husbands, could join in marriage if it were not forbidden by law, as it is said to be the custom among the Persians. But then, if we understood that, when the brother was dead, it was forbidden to marry the wife of the brother, we are presented with the precept that the Scripture imposes when it comes to leaving offspring to a dead brother without children (Cf Dt 25,5). And therefore, compared this prohibition with that mandate, so that there is no contradiction between them, we must think that there is an exception, that is, it is not lawful for anyone to marry the wife of a deceased brother, if the dead left offspring . Or that this would be forbidden, so that it would not be lawful to marry the brother's wife even if she had separated by repudiation of the living brother. Because then, as the Lord says, Moses, because of the hardness of the Jews, would have allowed them to give the libel of repudiation (Cf Mt 19,8). And because of this dismissal it could be thought that anyone could marry lawfully with his brother's wife, when he did not fear adultery, since he would have separated from her by repudiation.

62 (Lv 18,17). You will not discover the nakedness of a woman or her daughter. That is, no one thinks that it is lawful for him to marry his wife's daughter. It is not lawful to discover at the same time the nakedness of the woman and her daughter, that is, to have sexual relations with both, with the mother and with the daughter.

63 (Lv 18,17.18). You will not take your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter. The text also prohibits marrying the woman's granddaughter, the daughter of a son or daughter. You will not take a woman along with her sister to make her jealous. Here it is not forbidden to marry more than one woman, which was allowed to the ancients to increase offspring. But it is forbidden to marry two sisters. This seems to have been done by Jacob (Cf Gn 30,22-28), either because he was not yet forbidden by law or because he was deceived, by giving him another woman to replace what he wanted, and what he got later, he liked her more. But it was unfair to dispatch the first one, so as not to put her in danger of committing adultery. The final sentence: to produce jealousy, has it been set so that there is no jealousy among the sisters, since the zeal that existed among those who were not sisters had to be despised? Or has it been put rather so that it is not done for this, that is, so that the marriage with two sisters is not made with the intention of provoking zeal among them?

64 (Lv 18,19). You will not approach a woman in separation from her impurity to discover her nakedness. That is, you will not approach a woman during menstruation. The woman, in fact, was separated, according to the law, because of her impurity. What does it mean that here too we wanted to add this with the same precepts with which it was banned (Cf Lv 15,19-27) already enough, above? As this was said before, so as not to believe that it had to be taken figuratively, has he also put it here, where these things are forbidden, that, once the observation of the ancient shadows has been abolished, to observe them also without doubt in the time of the New Testament? The Scripture seems to have indicated this also through the prophet Ezekiel, who also mentions the sin of approaching a woman during menstruation between sins that are clearly of iniquity, not symbols of something. And among the merits of justice the prophet does not approach such a woman (Cf Ez 18,6; 22,10). In this matter, nature is not condemned, but rather the danger that can arise for the conception of offspring.

65 (Lv 18,20). Your neighbor's wife will not give him the coitus of your semen, to contaminate you with it. Here again the adultery committed with the wife of the neighbor is forbidden again, something that the Decalogue also prohibits (Cf Ex 20,17). It is shown here that those things are forbidden in such a way that, even if their husbands are dead, men should not marry women whose nakedness the Lord forbids to discover.

66 (Lv 18,21). And you will not give of your offspring to serve the prince. Here I do not see what else can be understood except the adoration of the prince, instead of God. For the Greek text does not say duleíein, but latreíein, a word that Latin translators usually do not translate except by serving (serving). But the meaning of both words is very different. Because the Scripture does not prohibit serving men as slaves do, which is not latreíein, but duleíein. But, according to the meaning of the verse, it is not commanded to serve men, but to the one and true God, as it is written: The Lord your God you will worship and he will only serve (Dt 6,13). But not only with the word latreíein? it is sufficiently indicated who is called prince, that is, who is worshiped as God, but also appears with what comes next: And you will not profane the holy name. Or it is the name of God, whose people can thus serve the prince, or the holy name of the own people of Israel. And that is why it is said: You are holy, since I too am holy (Lv 11,44; 19,2; 1P 1,16). Very opportunely it is also added here: I, the Lord. In this way he notices that he is only owed the latreía, the servitude with which he serves God.

67 (Lv 18,25). The Scripture says: And the earth was filled with horror before those who inhabit it. He filled them with horror at the bad deeds of the men who were mentioned before. But we must not think that the Scripture says this because the earth has senses to experience this and to be horrified. With the name of land is designated the men who live on the earth. Therefore, when men do these bad things, they stain the earth, because men who imitate these things are stained. And the earth is horrified, because people who neither do nor imitate this are horrified.

68 (Lv 19,11). You will not steal or lie or slander your neighbor. The precept of theft appeared in the Decalogue (Cf Ex 20,14). As for what follows: You will not lie or slander your neighbor, it would be strange if you did not lock yourself in that precept that appears there: You will not say false testimony against your neighbor (Ex 20,16), because there can not be a slander without a lie, something that contains in the general statement about the false testimony. But there is a serious problem about whether these things can be admitted in any case. With regard to the lie, as it seems to almost everyone that a lie can be said to save one when no one is harmed, is it possible to affirm the same about theft? Can a theft be committed when no one is harmed? On the contrary, it can be done even when one looks at the one who is being robbed, as is the case when one steals the sword of a man who wants to kill himself. Actually, the slander I do not know if one could be made to his advantage. When Joseph slandered his brothers about the glass and charged them with the false accusation that they were spies, perhaps he did it to achieve greater joy, which they would later enjoy. Although if we tried to determine these things with appropriate definitions, perhaps there is no theft more than when harm is done to others, hiding what is foreign. And there is no slander more than when harm is done to others, accusing them of false guilt. But we can not say that lie exists only when harm is caused to our neighbor. When one says a false thing knowingly, it is certainly a lie, whether it is harmed with it or if no harm is done to anyone. Therefore, the serious problem about lying, that is, if the lie could ever be lawful, would probably be solved easily if we contemplated only the commandments, and not the examples. Because what is more blunt than this commandment: You will not lie? It is stated as: You will not make idols-which can never be lawful-and also what the Scripture says: You will not commit adultery-who would dare to say that adultery could ever be lawful? And the same as: You will not steal - according to that definition of theft the theft can never be lawful. And: You will not kill (Ex 20,4.13.14.15), because when a man is lawfully killed, the law kills him, not you. Can it be said that when a man lies lawfully, does the law lie? The examples make the question very difficult: the Egyptian midwives lied and God rewarded them with goods (Cf Ex 1,19.20). Rahab lied in favor of the spies of the country and for that reason she was released (Cf Jos 2,4; 6,25 24). Is it from what is said in the law: You will not lie, from where you have to understand the subject, and is it not lawful to tell a lie in the circumstance in which Rahab said it? It is more plausible to think that the lie was prohibited because it was unlawful that it was not made illegal because it was forbidden. So perhaps, as we said about the midwives, they were not rewarded because they told a lie, but they were rewarded for freeing the Hebrew children, in such a way that this mercy would have made that sin venial, but we could not stop thinking that it was sin. About Rahab we must also think that he was awarded the release of the spies, in such a way that the lie was forgiven for having granted them freedom. Well, where forgiveness is granted is that there has been a sin. We must avoid, however, thinking that forgiveness can also be granted to other sins if they are committed to free men. Because of this error would be followed many intolerable and absolutely detestable evils.

69 (Lv 19,13). You will not harm your neighbor. If men easily knew what it was to do harm and not do it, perhaps this general precept would be enough to preserve innocence. Because everything that is forbidden to do to others can be reduced to these words of Scripture: You will not harm your neighbor. What follows next: You will not deprive him, if he does not refer to the fact of not doing harm to others, stripping him, it can sometimes lead to one hurting another not stripping him, because to a madman, for example, you have to take him the sword, and if one did not do it when necessary, it would cause more damage.

70 (Lv 19,17.18). What does it mean that, having said before: You will not hate your brother in your mind; But correct your neighbor seriously and you will not bear a sin for his sake, then add: and your hand will not avenge? Does it mean perhaps "and is not punished"? Because, when you impose a punishment on your neighbor who commits a sin, you do it with good intentions, so as not to bear your sin through negligence. This is what has been said before: You will not hate your brother in your spirit. Because who is corrected, it might seem that you hate him, when in fact that is not your intention. The phrase: Do not take your hand, does it mean perhaps that you do not have to avenge your hand or allow yourself to be dragged by the desire for revenge? Because what is it to want revenge, but to rejoice and be pleased with the evil of others? And that is why it has been said: Do not get angry with the children of your people. Anger is defined by correctly saying that it is the desire for revenge. Some codices have: And your hand will not avenge. This means: do not want to revenge by reprimanding, but rather seek the good of the one you reprimand.

71 (Lv 19,28). You will not make incisions in your body for the soul. For the soul means "for the corpse of a dead man". In effect, you suffer for the person who died. Mourning belongs to this pain. And during the duel some people have the habit of making incisions in the body. God forbids it.

72 (Lv 20,5). So that those of his people forniquen after the princes. The meaning is not: "the princes of his people", but: those of his people forniquen. It is understood here by princes to those who were venerated as gods, as the Apostle says: According to the Prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2,2). And in the Gospel the Lord says: Now the Prince of this world has been thrown out (Jn 12,31). And: Behold, the Prince of this world will come and he will find nothing in me (Jn 14,30).

73 (Lv 20,10). Any man who commits adultery with the wife of another or who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife will die without remedy. The text says in plural: they will die without remedy, referring to the adulterer and the adulteress. And he wanted to point out here some difference between any man and his neighbor, although the Scripture often puts forth almost any man. But what does this expression mean, which speaks first of any man and then repeats the same thing about the neighbor, being natural that, if one has to abstain from the wife of any man, one should abstain much more from the wife of the neighbor ? If you had spoken first of your neighbor, you would have to add something about any man, so that he would not believe that he could commit adultery with the wife of one who was not a neighbor. Now, if the lesser evil is not lawful, how can the greater evil be lawful? Because if it is not lawful to commit adultery with the wife of any man, how much less will it be to commit it with the wife of your neighbor! Does this repetition perhaps try to explain what was said first, so that the evil is understood so great that it is committing adultery with the wife of any man, because, if one did, he would commit adultery with the woman of the neighbor? In reality, every man is a neighbor of another man.

74 (Lv 20,16). And if a woman approaches a beast to join with her, you will kill the woman and the beast. They will die without remedy: they are guilty. We can ask how an animal can be guilty, being an irrational being and not subject to the law in any way. Is it perhaps because, as in the rhetorical figure, the words are translated -which in Greek is called metaphor-, passing from an animate being to an inanimate one -and this is what is said, for example, a wild wind and an angry sea-, So also here has it moved from a rational to an irrational one? Indeed, we can think that the beasts have been ordered to kill precisely because, contaminated with such a great sin, they renew the memory of an unworthy act.

75 (Lv 20,17). Whoever takes his wife as his wife, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, seeing her nakedness and seeing her nakedness, is a disgrace. They will be exterminated in the presence of their offspring. He has discovered his sister's nudity. They will carry their sin. What does it mean here to see but to know it through sexual intercourse? It is the same thing that is said in the law: He met his wife (Gn 4,1.17.25), to indicate that he performed the sexual act with her. When it is said: They will bear with their sin, as they are talking about the punishment that will be applied to them, sin is here called punishment for sin.

76 (Lv 20,20). Whoever lies with his relative, discovers the nakedness of his relative: they will die without children. We can ask to what extent this kinship must be understood, since when it is distant, it is certainly permissible to take a wife and always has been. But it must be understood that it is not lawful to take it within the degrees that the law forbade and according to which it was said: Who goes to bed with his relative. Probably he has left without mentioning some, like the sister, daughter of both parents, or the wife of the mother's brother, that is, of the maternal uncle. Because first it was forbidden to marry the wife of the paternal uncle, although this is not called kinship, but affinity. What does it mean: They will die without children, since such unions have born children before and are also born now? Should we think that it is established by God's law that those born of these unions do not consider themselves children and, therefore, that they do not live their parents alive in any right?

And you shall not make your souls abominable, neither with the beasts, nor with the birds, nor with that which creeps on the earth, things that I have separated you as impure. It seems that here it is indicated that these things are not impure by nature, but by some mysterious sign, because it is said: Things that I have separated you as impure, as meaning that they would not be impure to them if God had not separated them.

77 (Lv 20,27). The man or the woman who had a ventriloquist or a sorcerer, will die without remedy. You will stone them. They are guilty. Who are you referring to? The man and the woman, or the man and the ventriloquist, or the woman and the ventriloquist or sorcerer? Most likely, it looks like this: not only who has, but also who has.

78 (Lv 21,7). They will not marry a prostitute or profaned woman, nor with a woman repudiated by her husband, because she is holy to the Lord her God. It had been said before: They will not marry. Now it is said: Because he is holy, not because they are holy. Using his usual way of expressing himself, the Scripture refers to many who are priests at the same time, and speaking to each of them in particular he says: Because he is holy. Because the high priest, who entered the saint of saints, mentions it later. Then he concludes, saying in the plural: you will be holy: he offers the gifts of the Lord your God. It is holy, because holy is I, the Lord, who sanctified them (Lv 21,8). Regarding the gifts mentioned with these words: He offers the gifts of the Lord your God, it must be noted that not only the high priest offered them, but also the priests of the second rank. The prohibition expressed as follows: They will not marry a prostitute or a profaned one, nor with one repudiated by her husband, it also refers to priests of the second rank. Because the high priest speaks later and says about him that he can only marry a virgin.

79 (Lv 21,10). The priest superior to his brothers, the one who is great among his brothers, is the only high priest. On whose head the anointed oil was poured. The Scripture calls Christum (anointed) in oil.

80 (Lv 21,10). Who received the investiture to dress, the garments. It is undoubtedly the garments that are described in detail when talking about the priestly garment (Cf Ex 28,4).

81 (Lv 21,10.11). He will not remove his miter from his head and will not tear his clothes and will not approach any dead soul. It is understood that he is forbidden to do what was previously said about mourning, that is, to discover the head, removing the miter and tearing the garments. Tearing the garments was a custom of the ancients when they mourned, as, for example, in the case of Job, when his sons announced to him that ruin had come upon them (Cf Jb 1,20). Discovering the head, taking off the miter, could be a gesture of mourning precisely because it was taking off an ornament. In relation to the phrase: And it will not come close to any dead soul, it is difficult to understand how the dead body is called dead soul. But it must be said that this is a frequent expression in the Scriptures that for us is very rare. In effect, the private body of the soul also receives the name of the one who governed it, because it must be returned in the resurrection. As, for example, the building that is called church, is still called church, although the church, which are men, has left there. But since the body does not receive the name of soul in a living man, we are surprised that it is called a soul when it lacks a soul. Now, if we understand that it is the dead soul, separated from the body, so that it would seem that death was the separation itself, that is, that the dead soul had been stripped from the body without losing its nature -for not even when it is said that we are dead to sin (Cf Rm 6,2), it is affirmed that nature has perished, but that we no longer sin, so that it is understood that the soul is dead, dead to the body, because it has ceased to use it, since it lives in its nature - how can one approach a dead soul, something that was forbidden to this priest, since whoever approaches, approaches a dead body, not a soul that has separated from the body? Or is it designated by the name of soul to one's own temporal life, which is certainly dead in a dead body, since that soul migrated that can not die? It is not a matter of the soul having been its own life, but because of the presence of the soul, which gave it subsistence, it has received its name. It is something similar to the distinction we made when speaking about blood, about which it was said: The soul of all flesh is blood (Lv 17,11). Because the blood is dead in a dead body, and it does not withdraw with the soul that withdraws. The Scripture therefore forbade the high priest to even approach the corpse of his own father or mother. Thing that did not forbid the priest of the second degree, because he continues saying: Neither by his father nor by his mother he will become impure (Lv 21,11). The order of the words is as follows: By his father he will not be made unclean by his mother.

82 (Lv 21,12). And it will not leave the saints. He no doubt refers to the time when funerals were celebrated by his family, as he was also forbidden to leave the saints during the seven days in which he was consecrated, but not forever. If the high priests were not forbidden, certainly, then marry or have children, there is a serious problem. For as the law says that a man is impure until the evening even by conjugal intercourse, even if he laves his body with water, (Cf Lv 8,33) and the high priest is commanded to go twice a day every day to the other side of the veil, there was the altar of incense, so that the incense may continue to burn always, and it is said that no impure person was allowed to approach the saint, how could the high priest fulfill this daily, if he begot children? Because if one asked who would supply him in the event that he fell ill, one can reply saying that because of God's favor he did not fall ill. Can the same be said about the procreation of children? From here it follows, or that it would keep the continence, or that for a few days the incense was interrupted, or, if it could not be interrupted, that which only the high priest could perform, then he would not become impure by conjugal intercourse on account of his special state of holiness. Or if he also refers to what is said below about all the sons of Aaron, that none of them should approach the saint if any impurity befalls him (Cf Lv 21,17), it is as a solution to think that some days he did not put incense.

83 (Lv 21,11). In relation to the fact that the high priest is prohibited from approaching the body of his father, he may wonder how he could already be a high priest if his father had not yet died, when the Scripture orders the high priests to succeed their parents. Because the incense, which had to be placed daily by the high priest, was always on, it was necessary that the priest be immediately replaced, even though the previous high priest was not buried. Although the question of the illness of the high priest still remains, if we think he could be sick a few days before dying. Unless this is also resolved by saying that the chief priests used to die suddenly, without pre-dating an illness, as the Scripture says about Aaron (Cf Nm 20,26-29).

84 (Lv 21,15). It should be noted that the Scripture says many times: It is I, the Lord, who sanctified him, speaking of the high priest, and that this same thing is said to Moses: And you shall sanctify him. How does Moses and the Lord sanctify? Moses does not do it for the Lord, but for his ministry, through visible rites. The Lord does it by his Holy Spirit, through his invisible grace, in whom all the fruit of his own visible rites resides. Because what are the visible rites taking advantage of without this sanctification of invisible grace? We can rightly ask if this invisible sanctification, without visible rites, for which man is visibly sanctified, does not serve equally for anything, which is naturally an absurdity. Because someone more acceptably would say that without them it would not exist, rather than saying that it would not take advantage if it existed, when in sanctification all the usefulness of the rites resides. But we must also see how it can be said correctly that without the rites, holiness could not exist. Because, in effect, the visible baptism of Simon Magus who lacked invisible sanctity was of no use to him (Cf Acts 8,9). But those to whom he took advantage of this invisible sanctification, because they had it, had also received the visible rites, for they had been baptized just as he was. With regard to Moses, who visibly sanctified the priests, it is not said where he himself was sanctified by the same sacrifices or by the oil. But who would dare to deny that he was sanctified invisibly, he who stood out for such great grace? The same can also be said of John the Baptist, since he appeared earlier as a baptizer than as a baptized one (Cf Mt 3,11.14). Therefore we can not deny at all that he too was sanctified. But nowhere do we find that this has been done with him in a visible way before he himself came to the ministry of baptism. The same can be said of that thief whom the Lord told him when he was crucified with him: Today you will be with me in paradise (Lc 23,43). Because this man could not receive the gift of such great happiness without invisible sanctification. Therefore, we must conclude that some had and took advantage of invisible sanctification without visible rites, which were changing over time, so that before they were some and now they are others. But the visible sanctification that would be verified by the visible rites, could exist without this invisible sanctification, but it could not be profitable. However, this is not the reason why we should despise the visible rite. For he who despises him can not be sanctified invisibly. From this it is deduced that Cornelius and those who were with him, although they were already sanctified invisibly by the coming of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless, were baptized (Cf Hch 10,44-48). And this visible sanctification was not deemed superfluous, even though it had already preceded invisible sanctification.

85 (Lv 22,1-3). And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: "Tell Aaron and his sons to take care of the saints of the children of Israel; they will not profane my holy name with the many things that they consecrate to me; I, the Lord ». And you will say to them: "Any man, whoever is of all your descendants, in your generations, who comes near to the holy things that consecrate the Lord the children of Israel and impurity in him, that soul will be exterminated from my presence, I , the Lord your God ». Disappearance, then, all doubt that no priest, or the high priests or the second rank, could approach the holy things having some impurity. The priest was required to have continence, lest the incense be continued for some days by the procreation of the children. The incense used to put it twice a day, in the morning and in the afternoon (Cf Ex 30,7.8). And only the high priests did it. And continence was demanded of them, because after the conjugal intercourse, even if the priest washed his body, he remained impure until the evening (Cf Lv 15,16), and it was he who had to put the incense. The phrase: "The things consecrated by the children of Israel" means that the faithful offered them to the priests so that they could offer them to the Lord. And it is necessary to indicate the sort of consecration, because it is done by a vote and by the devotion of the offeror. But it is necessary to pay attention to whether it is also said in the Scriptures that men consecrate themselves in this same way, when for some reason they consecrate themselves by making a vow, as consecrated in this way are the things Men offer.

86 (Lv 22,4). And whoever touches any impurity of soul. It means any corpse, because touching a corpse produces an impurity as established by law.

87 (Lv 24,15-16). Any man who curses his God will bear his sin. Whoever pronounces the name of the Lord, will die without remedy. It seems like one thing is to curse your God and another to pronounce the name of the Lord. And it seems that this is a sin, and this, a crime so great that it deserves even the death penalty. Although in this text the words: the name of the Lord, must be understood in the sense that it is done with a curse, that is, that the name of God be said by cursing him, what difference is there between that sin and this crime? So serious? Have you tried to show, perhaps, by repeating the same thing, that the sin was not small, but such a great evil that it should be punished with the death penalty? The thing is very dark, because the text introduces a distinction. It does not say: «Well, he who pronounces» (nominans enim), but says: «He who pronounces, instead» (nominans autem). Therefore, if we understand this correctly, we must also pay attention to the genre of expression.

88 (Lv 24,17). Whoever strikes [all] the soul of man and he dies, he will die without remedy. It is not said: "Whoever hurts a man and he dies," but says: to the soul of man, when, in reality, it is rather the body of man that is wounded by the one who produces the wound, as he says the Lord: Do not fear those who kill the body (Mt 10,28). As Scripture usually does, it calls soul to the life of the body that comes to it through the soul, and with this it has wanted to reveal the murderer, who hurts the soul of man, who deprives man of his life, wounding him mortally. Why is it added: And this one dies, if homicide is already pointed out by the very fact that one has hurt the soul of man, that is, man has been deprived of life by the murderer? Have we wanted to say, perhaps, how we should understand what the text says: "the soul of the wounded man", and that is why it is said: And he dies, as if to say: he is dead? Because this is what it means that the soul of man has been wounded.

89 (Lv 25,2-4). When you have entered the land that I am going to give you and the land that I am going to give you on the Lord's sabbaths has rested, six years you shall sow your field and six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather its fruit; but the seventh year will be Saturday: the earth will have its rest, Saturday for the Lord. How should we understand the phrase: When you have entered the land that I am going to give you and the earth has rested, "six years will you sow your field," etc.? It seems as if they had been ordered to do that when the earth had rested, while the earth rests precisely because this is done. For the text refers to the rest of the earth in the seventh year, in which the Lord commanded that no one should work in it through agriculture. But, evidently, the long hyperbaton makes the meaning of the text obscure. It seems that the order of words would be as follows. When you have entered the land that I am going to give you and the land that I am going to give you has rested, it is the Sabbath of the Lord: you do not reap things that come from your field by yourself, and the grape of your sanctification does not you will harvest It will be the year of rest for the earth. And the Sabbath of the earth will be food for you and for your servant and your servant and for your hired servant and for your guest who resides with you. Also for your cattle and for your animals that are in your land, everything that springs from it will be eaten (Lv 25,5-7). To explain how the earth rests, he interposed the following words: Six years you will sow your field and six years you will prune your vineyard and gather its fruit; but the seventh year will be a sabbath: the earth will have its rest, the Sabbath of the Lord. You shall not sow your field and you shall not prune your vineyard. By saying: You will not prune, we must understand that all agriculture is prohibited that year. Because if you can not prune, you can not plow or hold with stakes or use anything else that serves agriculture. Now, as the part is usually taken for the whole, so also for the pruning all kinds of cultivation are indicated. And when mentioning the field and the vineyard, as it was forbidden to sow that field and prune this vineyard, we must understand that it is all sorts of fields. Because it is clear that you can not work in an olive grove or in any other field, which has not been mentioned. As for the phrase: And the Sabbath of the earth will be food for you and for your servant and for your servant, etc., it is clear that with it the owner of the field has not been prohibited from feeding on what the earth spontaneously produces. year without having been cultivated. But it is forbidden to collect the fruits. It is allowed, then, to take something from there to eat, as in passing, taking only what can be eaten immediately by eating it, not what is collected for use at other times.

90 (Lv 25,23). And the earth will not be sold for desecration. Other codices say: for confirmation. I think that the error occurred in one and the other, first in Greek because of the sound similarity of the word; because babylosis means "desecration" and bebayosis, "confirmation". The sense of desecration is clear: And the land will not be sold for desecration, that is, that no one dares to sell the land that he received from God, to the profane, who use it for the impiety and worship of foreign gods and false. On the other hand, the meaning of: And the earth will not be sold for confirmation. I think we should understand it only in the sense that the sale should not be made firm, so that the seller does not receive it in the time established to be returned, as ordered. But what follows, can agree with both senses, and read: And the earth will not be sold for desecration, and read: for confirmation, because the text adds: Because the earth is mine, since you are for me as strangers and guests (Lv 25,23).

91 (Lv 25,24). And throughout the land of your possession you will give the reward (mercedem) to the earth. Other codices have: You will give ransom (redemptionem) to the earth. The meaning is this: The land will not be sold for profanation, that is, it will not be sold to those who use it as an injury to the Breeder, or for confirmation, that is, for the buyer to possess it perpetually and not return it to the seller in the time established according to the precept of God. And the reason is: Because the earth is mine, therefore, you must use it according to my precept. And to demonstrate that the earth is theirs and not theirs and to say what they are on earth, the text adds below: Since you are for me as strangers and guests. That is to say, although for you outsiders are those who join your people from among foreigners, and although they are guests, that is, they inhabit their own land, nevertheless, all of you are also before me as strangers and guests. God says this, not only to the Israelites, because he gave them the land of the other people that he expelled, but to any man, because before God, who remains eternally and who fills heaven and earth with his own presence, as is written, every man is a stranger at birth and a guest when living, because he is driven to emigrate with death.

92 (Lv 25,24). Then add the following: And throughout the land of your possession you will give the reward to the land, as tenants, or the ransom. If I am not mistaken, here it refers to what they returned from the earth in a certain way when they interrupted their cultivation every seven and every fifty years (Cf Lv 25,8), something that the Scripture calls the year of remission. So the rest of the earth, as a reward for the room, or the rescue out of that of whom the earth is, that is, of God its creator.

93 (Lv 26,11). And I will put my tabernacle in your midst and my soul will not abandon you. God says that his will is his soul. Because God is not an animate being that has body and soul. Neither its substance is like that of the creature, which is called a soul, which he made, as the Lord himself attests through Isaiah, saying: And I have done all the blowing (Is 57,16). What the text says below shows that it is the soul of man. For as when God speaks of his eyes and lips or quotes other words concerning the bodily members, we naturally do not think that God is defined by a bodily form, but that all those terms referring to the bodily members are only considered as effects of the actions and powers of God; In the same way, when God speaks of his soul, we must understand that it is his will. Indeed, that perfect and simple nature, which is called God, does not consist of body and spirit, nor is it changeable by the spirit itself as the soul is. But God is also spirit, and he is always the same, he in whom there is no change. From here the apolinarians drew their argument to say that man, Christ Jesus (Cf 1Tm 2,5), mediator between God and men, had no soul, but was only Word and flesh, in saying those words: My soul is sad until death (Mt 26,28). But from his performance, which is manifested to us by the truth of the Gospel, appear the actions of the human soul so clear that it is dementia to question it.

94 (Lv 26,33,34). What does it mean that, by threatening God with the penalties due to disobedience, he says, among other things: And the drawn sword will consume you. And then he adds: And your land will be deserted, and your cities will be deserted. Then the earth will feel good on its Saturdays during all the days of its desolation and you will be in the country of your enemies. How will the sword devour them, if they will be in the land of their enemies? Will you devour them perhaps in your own country, because the deeds of death will not happen there? Or it says: It will consume you, meaning: "it will kill you", so that they belong to this ruin those that will fall to the sword, but not all, because shortly after it adds: To those who remain of you, I will instill panic in your heart? (Lv 26,36) Or the expression: It will consume you is a hyperbole, how is it a hyperbole to say that its number will be like the sand of the sea? (Cf Gn 22,17; 32,12) According to this same way of expressing itself, it is also said what comes next: And the noise of a fallen leaf will chase them. This means that their fear will be so great that even the smallest things will infuse it.