12 If he offers it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the thanksgiving sacrifice unleavened loaves mixed with oil, unleavened wafers smeared with oil, and loaves of fine flour well mixed with oil.
16 and he fell on his face at Jesus’ feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan.
John Gill
And he fell on his face at Jesus’ feet—For being cleansed, he might draw nigh unto Jesus; and which he did, with the most profound respect unto him, and reverence of him; and having a deep sense of the favour he had received from him, prostrated himself in this manner before him:
Giving him thanks—Who had shown compassion to him, had exerted his power on him, and had favoured him with such a singular mercy, as restoring him to health.
Now he was a Samaritan—This is particularly remarked by the evangelist, because the Samaritans were reckoned by the Jews, to be ignorant and irreligious persons, and no better than Gentiles; and yet this man behaved as a religious good man, who had a sense of his mercy, knew his duty, and his obligations, and performed them; when the other nine, who very likely were all Jews, acted a very stupid and ungrateful part.
18 Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner? LUK 17:16, 18
John Gill
Was no one found to return—Or it do not appear, that any have returned:
And give praise to God—For inasmuch as they did not return to give thanks to Christ, and acknowledge him the author of their cure and cleansing they did not give praise to God:
Except this foreigner—For so the Samaritans were reckoned by the Jews, even as the Gentile, aliens from the commonwealth, of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise. Christ speaks in the language and dialect of the nation, and yet we find sometimes, that, “a Cuthite,” or a Samaritan, is distinguished from, “a foreigner,” or a Gentile: they might set up their beasts in the inns of the Samaritans, but not in the inns of “strangers”; and a man might let out his bath to a Samaritan, but not to a “foreigner”; but this must be understood of them in times past, before they were found out to be idolaters; when, as Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says, they were as Israelites in all things, and kept the law and the precepts of it, and even more exactly than the Israelites themselves did; but afterwards a Samaritan was reckoned a Gentile, and so he was in the times of Christ; and therefore he calls a Samaritan a foreigner: that tradition of the Jews, requires some notice and consideration; all are defiled
“with leprosies, except, ‘strangers,’ and the proselyte of the gate.”
And yet here is a foreigner among the Jews, and reckoned unclean, on account of leprosy, and sent with them to show himself to the priest.
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ROM 1:21
For although they knew God—Though they had such a knowledge of the being and perfections of God, yet
They did not honor him as God—They neither thought nor spoke honourably of him; nor did they ascribe those perfections to him, which belonged to him; they did not adhere to him as the one and only God, nor honour him as the Creator of all things out of nothing, and as the sole governor of the universe; they did not glorify him by the internal exercise of fear of him, love to him, or trust in him, nor by any external worship suitable to his nature, and their own notions of him, Seneca is an instance of this, of whom Austin says,
“that he worshiped what he found fault with, did what he reproved, and adored that which he blamed.”
Or give thanks to him—For the knowledge of things they had, which they ascribed to themselves; or for their mercies, which they imputed to second causes:
But they became futile in their thinking—The vanity or their minds was the spring and source of their evil conduct; which may design the wickedness of their hearts, and the thinking thereof, which were evil, and that continually; the pride of their natures the carnality and weakness of their reasonings, and the whole system of their futile philosophy; and hence they ran into polytheism, or the worshiping of many gods:
And their foolish hearts were darkened—Where they thought their great wisdom lay: darkness is natural to the hearts and understandings of all men, which is increased by personal iniquity; Satan is concerned in improving it, and God sometimes gives up the hearts of persons to judicial blindness, which was the case of these men.
15 And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering. He shall not leave any of it until the morning.
Berakhot 2a:5
Rabban Gamliel cites several cases in support of his claim, such as the burning of fats and limbs on the altar. Due to the quantity of offerings each day, the priests were often unable to complete the burning of all of the fats and limbs, so they continued to be burned into the night, as it is written: “This is the law of the burnt offering. The burnt offering shall remain upon the pyre on the altar all night until the morning, and the fire of the altar burns it” (Lev 6:2). And, with regard to all sacrifices, such as the sin offerings and the guilt offerings that are eaten for one day and night; although the Sages state that they may be eaten only until midnight, by law they may be eaten until dawn. This is in accordance with the verse: “On the day on which it is offered must you eat. Do not leave it until the morning” (Lev 7:15). If so, why did the Sages say that they may be eaten only until midnight? This is in order to distance a person from transgression, as if one believes that he has until dawn to perform the commandment, he might be negligent and postpone it until the opportunity to perform the commandment has passed.
Menachot 81b:18
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Zeira, and he was sitting and saying: The mishna taught only that the loaves may not be brought from second-tithe wheat itself, but he may bring the loaves from wheat purchased from second-tithe money. Rabbi Zeira said to him: My teacher, do you say so? I say that he may not bring the loaves even from wheat purchased from second-tithe money. And I will say my reasoning and I will say your reasoning. I will say your reasoning first: From where do you derive that the loaves of a thanks offering may be brought from wheat purchased with second-tithe money? You derive it from the halakha of a peace offering. A thanks offering is a type of peace offering, as the verse states: “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanks” (Lev 7:15), and a peace offering may be brought from second-tithe money.
Rashi
And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving—The verse could have said, “And its flesh.” Consequently, there are many apparently redundant words; they are intended to include in this law the sin offering, the guilt offering, the Nazirite’s ram and the חֲגִיגָה (the festive offering of the pilgrims) brought on the fourteenth of Nisan—that these should be eaten only during one day (the day of slaughtering) and the following night (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 12 1; Zevachim 36a).
Shall be eaten on the day of his offering—And as the period prescribed for eating its flesh is the period during which its bread may be eaten (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 12 1).
He shall not leave any of it until the morning, but during the whole night he may eat of it. But if this be so why have they (the Rabbis) say (Zevachim 55a) that it may only be eaten during the day and the following night till midnight? As a precaution to keep people far from the possibility of sinning (cf. Berakhot 2a).
Zevachim 4a:18
Rav Pinḥas, son of Rav Ami, says: The verse states with regard to a thanks offering: “And the meat of the sacrifice [zevaḥ] of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering” (Lev 7:15), apparently indicating that its slaughter [zeviḥa] must be performed for the sake of a thanks offering. And if this language is not needed for the matter of deviation with regard to the type of offering, and in fact it is not, as we already derived this halakha from there, i.e., the verse cited concerning peace offerings, apply it to the matter of deviation with regard to the owner. It is thereby derived that an offering must be slaughtered for the sake of its owner.
Zevachim 7a:7
Rabba said: From where do I say that it is fit? It is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the meat of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving . . . on the day that he presents his offering it shall be eaten” (Lev 7:15-16). Abba Ḥanin said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The verse comes to teach that a thanks offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a peace offering is fit, whereas a peace offering that was slaughtered for the sake of a thanks offering is unfit. And what is the difference between this offering and that offering? A thanks offering is called a peace offering in the verse, but a peace offering is not called a thanks offering.
Zevachim 36a:3
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems the offering unfit if there was intent to leave it over until the next day or to take it out of its designated area? Rabbi Elazar said: There are two verses that are written with regard to notar. One verse states: “You shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn” (Exo 12:10), and one verse states: “He shall not leave any of it until the morning” (Lev 7:15). If the additional verse is not necessary for the matter of the prohibition against leaving it overnight, which is already mentioned by the first verse, apply it to the matter of intent of leaving it overnight, which would therefore be prohibited as well.
Zevachim 36a:4
The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, does this verse come to teach this idea? This verse is necessary for him to derive that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering. He shall not leave any of it until the morning” (Lev 7:15). From the words: “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving,” we learned with regard to a thanks offering that it is eaten for a day and a night.
16 But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow offering or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice, and on the next day what remains of it shall be eaten.
Bekhorot 27b:7
The Gemara asks: And Rav, from where does he derive that a firstborn is eaten for two days and one night? The Gemara answers: He derives it from a verse in which Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons with regard to eating the firstborn: “But their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh are yours” (Num 18:18). The verse thereby juxtaposed the halakha of the firstborn with the breast and thigh of a peace offering. Just as there, it may be eaten for two days and one night, as stated explicitly in a verse (see Lev 7:16), so too here, a firstborn may be eaten for two days and one night.
Rashi
But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow offering or a freewill offering—That he does not bring it as an acknowledgement of some miraculous deliverance (cf. Rashi v. 12), then it does not require the offering of bread and may be eaten during two days as is delineated in the section.
And on the next day what remains of it—On the first day, shall be eaten—This vav (that of וְהַנּוֹתָר) is redundant (the text being equivalent to הַנּוֹתָר); there are many similar examples in Scripture: “These are the sons of Zibeon: Aiah (וְאַיֶָּה) and Anah” (Gen 36:24); “giving over of the sanctuary (וְקֹדֶשׁ) and the host to be trampled” (Dan 8:13).