Leviticus 11-13

New English Translation

Footnotes

1. Leviticus 11:2 tn Heb “the animal,” but as a collective plural, and so throughout this chapter.
2. Leviticus 11:3 tn Heb “every divider of hoof and cleaver of the cleft of hooves”; KJV, ASV “parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted.”
3. Leviticus 11:3 tn Heb “bringer up of the cud” (a few of the ancient versions include the conjunction “and,” but it does not appear in the MT). The following verses make it clear that both dividing the hoof and chewing the cud were required; one of these conditions would not be enough to make the animal suitable for eating without the other.
4. Leviticus 11:4 tn Heb “this,” but as a collective plural (see the following context).
5. Leviticus 11:4 sn Regarding “clean” versus “unclean,” see the note on Lev 10:10.
6. Leviticus 11:4 tn Heb “because a chewer of the cud it is” (see also vv. 5 and 6).
7. Leviticus 11:4 tn Heb “and hoof there is not dividing” (see also vv. 5 and 6).
8. Leviticus 11:5 sn A small animal generally understood to be Hyrax syriacus; KJV, ASV, NIV “coney”; NKJV “rock hyrax.”
9. Leviticus 11:7 tn See the note on Lev 11:3.
10. Leviticus 11:7 tn The meaning and basic rendering of this clause is quite certain, but the verb for “chewing” the cud here is not the same as the preceding verses, where the expression is “to bring up the cud” (see the note on v. 3 above). It appears to be a cognate verb for the noun “cud” (גֵּרָה, gerah) and could mean either “to drag up” (i.e., from the Hebrew Qal of גָרָר [garar] meaning “to drag,” referring to the dragging the cud up and down between the stomach and mouth of the ruminant animal; so J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:647, 653) or “to chew” (i.e., from the Hebrew Niphal [or Qal B] of גָרָר used in a reciprocal sense; so J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 149, and compare BDB 176 s.v. גָרַר, “to chew,” with HALOT 204 s.v. גרר qal. B, “to ruminate”).
11. Leviticus 11:8 sn The regulations against touching the carcasses of dead unclean animals (contrast the restriction against eating their flesh) is treated in more detail in Lev 11:24-28 (cf. also vv. 29-40). For the time being, this chapter continues to develop the issue of what can and cannot be eaten.
12. Leviticus 11:9 tn Heb “all which have fin and scale” (see also vv. 10 and 12).
13. Leviticus 11:9 tn Heb “in the water, in the seas and in the streams” (see also vv. 10 and 12).
14. Leviticus 11:13 tn For zoological remarks on the following list of birds see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:662-64; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 159-60.
15. Leviticus 11:14 tn Heb “and the buzzard to its kind” (see also vv. 16 and 19 for the same expression “of any kind”).
16. Leviticus 11:15 tn Heb “every crow to its kind.” Many English versions (e.g., KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) render this as “raven.”
17. Leviticus 11:16 tn Literally, “the daughter of the wasteland.” Various proposals for the species of bird referred to here include “owl” (KJV), “horned owl” (NIV, NCV), and “ostrich” (ASV, NAB, NASB, NRSV, NLT).
18. Leviticus 11:20 tn Heb “the one walking on four” (cf. vv. 21-23 and 27-28).
19. Leviticus 11:21 tn Heb “which to it are lower legs from above to its feet” (reading the Qere “to it” rather than the Kethib “not”).
20. Leviticus 11:22 tn For entomological remarks on the following list of insects see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:665-66; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 160-61.
21. Leviticus 11:24 tn Heb “and to these.”
22. Leviticus 11:26 tn Heb “to all” (cf. the note on v. 24). This and the following verses develop more fully the categories of uncleanness set forth in principle in vv. 24-25.
23. Leviticus 11:26 tn Heb “divides hoof and cleft it does not cleave”; KJV “divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted”; NLT “divided but unsplit hooves.”
24. Leviticus 11:26 tn See the note on Lev 11:3.
25. Leviticus 11:26 sn Compare the regulations in Lev 11:2-8.
26. Leviticus 11:27 tn Heb “the one walking on four.” Cf. Lev 11:20-23.
27. Leviticus 11:29 tn For zoological analyses of the list of creatures in vv. 29-30, see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:671-72; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 161-62.
28. Leviticus 11:31 tn Heb “touches them.”
29. Leviticus 11:32 tn Heb “And all which it shall fall on it from them.”
30. Leviticus 11:32 tn Heb “in water it shall be brought.”
31. Leviticus 11:33 tn Heb “And any earthenware vessel which shall fall from them into its midst.”
32. Leviticus 11:33 tn Heb “all which is in its midst.”
33. Leviticus 11:34 tn Heb “which water comes on it.”
34. Leviticus 11:34 tn Heb “any drink which may be drunk”; NASB “any liquid which may be drunk”; NLT “any beverage that is in such an unclean container.”
35. Leviticus 11:34 tn This half of the verse assumes that the unclean carcass has fallen into the food or drink (cf. v. 33 and also vv. 35-38).
36. Leviticus 11:35 tn Heb “be unclean.”
37. Leviticus 11:36 tn Heb “a spring and a cistern collection of water”; NAB, NIV “for collecting water.”
38. Leviticus 11:37 tn Heb “And if there falls from their carcass on any seed of sowing which shall be sown.”
39. Leviticus 11:39 tn This word for “animal” refers to land animal quadrupeds, not just any beast that dwells on the land (cf. 11:2).
40. Leviticus 11:39 tn Heb “which is food for you” or “which is for you to eat.”
41. Leviticus 11:42 tn Heb “goes” (KJV, ASV “goeth”); NIV “moves about”; NLT “slither along.” The same Hebrew term is translated “walks” in the following clause.
42. Leviticus 11:42 tn Heb “until all multiplying of legs.”
43. Leviticus 11:43 tn Heb “by any of the swarming things that swarm.”
44. Leviticus 11:45 tn Heb “to be to you for a God.”
45. Leviticus 11:46 sn The Hebrew term translated “law” (תּוֹרָה, torah) introduces here a summary or colophon for all of Lev 11. Similar summaries are found in Lev 7:37-38; 13:59; 14:54-57; and 15:32-33.
46. Leviticus 11:46 tn Heb “for all the creatures.”
47. Leviticus 12:2 tn Heb “produces seed” (Hiphil of זָרַע, zaraʿ; used only elsewhere in Gen 1:11-12 for plants “producing” their own “seed”), referring to the process of childbearing as a whole, from conception to the time of birth (H. D. Preuss, TDOT 4:144; cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 164-65; and J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:742-43). Smr and LXX have Niphal “be impregnated” (see, e.g., Num 5:28); note KJV “If a woman have conceived seed” (cf. ASV, NAB, NRSV; also NIV, NLT “becomes pregnant”).
48. Leviticus 12:2 sn The regulations for the “male child” in vv. 2-4 contrast with those for the “female child” in v. 5 (see the note there).
49. Leviticus 12:2 tn Heb “as the days of the menstrual flow [nom.] of her menstruating [q. inf.] she shall be unclean” (R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:925-26; the verb appears only in this verse in the OT). Cf. NASB “as in the days of her menstruation”; NLT “during her menstrual period”; NIV “during her monthly period.”sn See Lev 15:19-24 for the standard purity regulations for a woman’s menstrual period.
50. Leviticus 12:3 tn Heb “and in….”
51. Leviticus 12:3 tn This rendering, “the flesh of his foreskin,” is literal. Based on Lev 15:2-3, one could argue that the Hebrew word for “flesh” here (בָּשָׂר, basar) is euphemistic for the male genitals and therefore translate “the foreskin of his member” (see, e.g., J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:748). A number of English versions omit this reference to the foreskin and mention only circumcision, presumably for euphemistic reasons (cf. NIV, NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT).
52. Leviticus 12:4 tn Heb “sit, dwell” (יָשָׁב, yashav) normally means “to sit, to dwell”), but here it means “to remain, to stay” in the same condition for a period of time (cf., e.g., Gen 24:55).
53. Leviticus 12:4 tn Heb “in bloods of purification” or “purifying” or “purity”; NASB “in the blood of her purification”; NRSV “her time of blood purification.” See the following note.
54. Leviticus 12:4 tn The initial seven days after the birth of a son were days of blood impurity for the woman as if she were having her menstrual period. Her impurity was contagious during this period, so no one should touch her or even furniture on which she has sat or reclined (Lev 15:19-23), lest they too become impure. Even her husband would become impure for seven days if he had sexual intercourse with her during this time (Lev 15:24; cf. 18:19). The next thirty-three days were either “days of purification, purifying” or “days of purity,” depending on how one understands the abstract noun טֹהֳרָה (toharah, “purification, purity”) in this context. During this time the woman could not touch anything holy or enter the sanctuary, but she was no longer contagious like she had been during the first seven days. She could engage in normal everyday life, including sexual intercourse, without fear of contaminating anyone else (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 73-74; cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:749-50). Thus, in a sense, the thirty-three days were a time of blood “purity” (cf. the present translation) as compared to the previous seven days of blood “impurity,” but they were also a time of blood “purification” (or “purifying”) as compared to the time after the thirty-three days, when the blood atonement had been made and she was pronounced “clean” by the priest (see vv. 6-8 below). In other words, the thirty-three day period was a time of “blood” (flow), but this was “pure blood,” as opposed to the blood of the first seven days.
55. Leviticus 12:5 tn Heb “on purity blood.” The preposition here is עַל (ʿal) rather than ב (bet, as it is in the middle of v. 4), but no doubt the same meaning is intended.
56. Leviticus 12:5 tn For clarification of the translation here, see the notes on vv. 2-4 above. sn The doubling of the time after the birth of a female child is puzzling (see the remarks in J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:750-51; and G. J. Wenham, Leviticus [NICOT], 188). Some have argued, for example, that it derives from the relative status of the sexes, or a supposed longer blood flow for the birth of a woman, or even to compensate for the future menstrual periods of the female just born. Perhaps there is a better explanation. First, a male child must be circumcised on the eighth day, so the impurity of the mother could not last beyond the first seven days lest it interfere with the circumcision rite. A female child, of course, was not circumcised, so the impurity of the mother would not interfere and the length of the impure time could be extended further. Second, it would be natural to expect that the increased severity of the blood flow after childbirth, as compared to that of a woman’s menstrual period, would call for a longer period of impurity than the normal seven days of the menstrual period impurity (compare Lev 15:19 with 15:25-30). Third, this suggests that the fourteen day impurity period for the female child would have been more appropriate, and the impurity period for the birth of a male child had to be shortened. Fourth, not only the principle of multiples of seven but also multiples of forty applies to this reckoning. Since the woman’s blood discharge after bearing a child continues for more than seven days, her discharge keeps her from contact with sacred things for a longer period of time in order to avoid contaminating the tabernacle (note Lev 15:31). This ended up totaling forty days for the birth of a male child (seven plus thirty-three) and a corresponding doubling of the second set of days for the woman (fourteen plus sixty-six). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:368-70. The fact that the offerings were the same for either a male or a female infant (vv. 6-8) suggests that the other differences in the regulations are not due to the notion that a male child had greater intrinsic value than a female child (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 169).
57. Leviticus 12:6 tn Heb “And when” (so KJV, NASB). Many recent English versions leave the conjunction untranslated.
58. Leviticus 12:6 tn Heb “a lamb the son of his year”; KJV “a lamb of the first year” (NRSV “in its first year”); NAB “a yearling lamb.”
59. Leviticus 12:6 sn See the note on Lev 1:3 regarding the “burnt offering.”
60. Leviticus 12:6 sn See the note on Lev 4:3 regarding the term “sin offering.”
61. Leviticus 12:7 tn Heb “and he” (i.e., the priest mentioned at the end of v. 6). The referent has been specified in the translation for clarity.
62. Leviticus 12:7 sn See the note on Lev 1:4 “make atonement.” The purpose of sin offering “atonement,” in particular, was to purge impurities from the tabernacle (see Lev 15:31 and 16:5-19, 29-34), whether they were caused by physical uncleannesses or by sins and iniquities. In this case, the woman has not “sinned” morally by having a child. Even Mary brought such offerings for giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:22-24), though she certainly did not “sin” in giving birth to him. Note that the result of bringing this “sin offering” was “she will be clean,” not “she will be forgiven” (cf. Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13). The impurity of the blood flow has caused the need for this “sin offering,” not some moral or relational infringement of the law (contrast Lev 4:2, “When a person sins by straying unintentionally from any of the commandments of the Lord”).
63. Leviticus 12:7 tn Or “she will be[come] pure.”
64. Leviticus 12:7 tn Heb “from her source [i.e., spring] of blood,” possibly referring to the female genital area, not just the “flow of blood” itself (as suggested by J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:761). Cf. ASV “from the fountain of her blood.”
65. Leviticus 12:8 tn Heb “If her hand cannot find the sufficiency of a sheep.” Many English versions render this as “lamb.”
66. Leviticus 12:8 tn Heb “from the sons of the pigeon,” referring either to “young pigeons” or “various species of pigeon” (contrast J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:168, with J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 14; cf. Lev 1:14 and esp. 5:7-10).
67. Leviticus 12:8 tn Or “she will be[come] pure.”
68. Leviticus 13:2 tn Heb “A man, if [or when] he has….” The term for “a man, human being” (אָדָם, ʾadam; see the note on Lev 1:2) in this case refers to any person among “mankind,” male or female, since either could be afflicted with infections on the skin.
69. Leviticus 13:2 tn Some of the terms for disease or symptoms of disease in this chapter present difficulties for the translator. Most modern English versions render the Hebrew term שְׂאֵת (s^eʾet) as “swelling,” which has been retained here (see the explanation in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 189). Some have argued that “deeper (עָמֹק, ʿamoq) than the skin of his body” in v. 3 means that “this sore was lower than the surrounding skin” (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:773), in which case “swelling” would be an inappropriate translation of שְׂאֵת in v. 2. Similarly, שְׂאֵת also occurs in v. 19, and then v. 20 raises the issue of whether or not it appears to be “lower (שָׁפָל, shafal) than the skin” (cf. also 14:37 for a mark on the wall of a house), which may mean that the sore sinks below the surface of the skin rather than protruding above it as a swelling would (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 76-77). Thus, one could translate here, for example, “discoloration” (so Milgrom and II שְׂאֵת “spot, blemish on the skin” in HALOT 1301 s.v. II שְׂאֵת) or “local inflammation, boil, mole” (so Levine). However, one could interpret “lower” as “deeper,” i.e., visibly extending below the surface of the skin into the deeper layers as suggested by J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 188, 192. “Swelling” often extends deeply below the surface of the skin, it is certainly a common symptom of skin diseases, and the alternation of these two terms (i.e., “deeper” and “lower”) in vv. 25-26 below shows that they both refer to the same phenomenon (see also the note on v. 20 below), so it is retained in the present translation.
70. Leviticus 13:2 tn The etymology and meaning of this term is unknown. It could mean “scab” (KJV, ASV, NASB) or possibly “rash” (NIV, NLT), “flaking skin,” or an “eruption” (NRSV) of some sort.
71. Leviticus 13:2 tn Heb “shiny spot” or “white spot,” but to render this term “white spot” in this chapter would create redundancy in v. 4 where the regular term for “white” occurs alongside this word for “bright spot.”
72. Leviticus 13:2 tn Heb “in the skin of his flesh” as opposed to the head or the beard (v. 29).
73. Leviticus 13:2 tn Heb “a mark [or stroke; or plague] of disease.” In some places in this context (vv. 2, 3) it could be translated “a contagious skin disease.” Although the Hebrew term צָרָעַת (tsaraʿat) rendered here “diseased” is translated in many English versions as “leprosy,” it does not refer to Hanson’s disease, which is the modern technical understanding of the term “leprosy” (HALOT 1057 s.v. צָרְעַת a). There has been much discussion of the proper meaning of the term and the disease(s) to which it may refer (see, e.g., J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:774-76, 816-26; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 187-89; and the literature cited by them). The further description of the actual condition in the text suggests that the regulations are concerned with any kind of infectious diseases that are observable on the surface of the skin and, in addition to that, penetrate below the surface of the skin (vv. 3-4) or spread further across the surface of the skin (vv. 5-8). It is true that, in the OT, the term “disease” is often associated specifically with white “scaly” skin diseases that resemble the wasting away of the skin after death (see Milgrom who, in fact, translates “scale disease”; cf., e.g., Exod 4:6-7 and Num 12:9-12, esp. v. 12), but here it appears to be a broader term for any skin disease that penetrates deep or spreads far on the body. Scaly skin diseases would be included in this category, but also other types. Thus, a “swelling,” “scab,” or “bright spot” on the skin might be a symptom of disease, but not necessarily so. In this sense, “diseased” is a technical term. The term “infection” can apply to any “mark” on the skin whether it belongs to the category of “disease” or not (compare and contrast v. 3, where the “infection” is not “diseased,” with v. 4, where the “infection” is found to be “diseased”).
74. Leviticus 13:2 tn Or “it shall be reported to Aaron the priest.” This alternative rendering may be better in light of the parallel use of the same expression in Lev 14:2, where the priest had to go outside the camp in order to inspect the person who had been diseased. Since the rendering “he shall be brought to Aaron the priest” might confuse matters there, this expression should be rendered “it shall be reported” both here in 13:2 (cf. also v. 9) and in 14:2. See, however, the further note on 14:2 below, where it is argued that the diseased person would still need to “be brought” to the priest even if this happened outside the camp. Most English versions retain the idea of the afflicted person being “brought” to the priest for inspection.
75. Leviticus 13:3 tn Heb “and the priest shall see the infection.”
76. Leviticus 13:3 tn There is no “if” expressed, but the contrast between the priestly finding in this verse and the next verse clearly implies it.
77. Leviticus 13:3 tn Heb “and the appearance of the infection is deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, “deeper than”) the skin of the his flesh.” See the note on v. 20 below.
78. Leviticus 13:3 tn For the translation “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above. Cf. TEV “a dreaded skin disease”; NIV “an infectious skin disease”; NLT “a contagious skin disease.”
79. Leviticus 13:3 tn The pronoun “it” here refers to the “infection,” not the person who has the infection (cf. the object of “examine” at the beginning of the verse).
80. Leviticus 13:3 tn Heb “he shall make him unclean.” The verb is the Piel of טָמֵא (tameʾ) “to be unclean.” Here it is a so-called “declarative” Piel (i.e., “to declare unclean”), but it also implies that the person is put into the category of actually being “unclean” by the pronouncement itself (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 175; cf. the corresponding opposite in v. 6 below).
81. Leviticus 13:4 tn Heb “and if.”
82. Leviticus 13:4 tn Heb “and deep is not its appearance from the skin”; cf. NAB “does not seem to have penetrated below the skin.”
83. Leviticus 13:4 tn Heb “and the priest will shut up the infection seven days.”
84. Leviticus 13:5 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
85. Leviticus 13:5 tn Heb “the infection has stood in his eyes”; ASV “if in his eyes the plague be at a stay.”
86. Leviticus 13:5 tn Although there is no expressed “and” at the beginning of this clause, there is in the corresponding clause of v. 6, so it should be assumed here as well.
87. Leviticus 13:5 tn Heb “a second seven days.”
88. Leviticus 13:6 tn That is, at the end of the second set of seven days referred to at the end of v. 5, a total of fourteen days after the first appearance before the priest.
89. Leviticus 13:6 tn Heb “and behold.”
90. Leviticus 13:6 tn Heb “he shall make him clean.” The verb is the Piel of טָהֵר (taher, “to be clean”). Here it is a so-called “declarative” Piel (i.e., “to declare clean”), but it also implies that the person is put into the category of being “clean” by the pronouncement itself (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 176; cf. the corresponding opposite in v. 3 above).
91. Leviticus 13:6 tn On the term “scab” see the note on v. 2 above. Cf. NAB “it was merely eczema”; NRSV “only an eruption”; NLT “only a temporary rash.”
92. Leviticus 13:6 tn Heb “and he shall wash his clothes.”
93. Leviticus 13:7 tn Heb “And if spreading [infinitive absolute] it spreads [finite verb].” For the infinitive absolute used to highlight contrast rather than emphasis see GKC 343 §113.p.
94. Leviticus 13:8 tn The “it” is not expressed but is to be understood. It refers to the “infection” (cf. the note on v. 2 above).
95. Leviticus 13:8 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
96. Leviticus 13:8 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tameʾ, cf. the note on v. 3 above).
97. Leviticus 13:9 tn Heb “When there is an infection of disease in a man.” The term for “a man; a human being” (אָדָם, ʾadam; see the note on Lev 1:2 and cf. v. 2 above) refers to any person among “mankind,” male or female. For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above.
98. Leviticus 13:10 tn Heb “and the priest shall see.” The pronoun “it” is unexpressed, but it should be assumed and it refers to the infection (cf. the note on v. 8 above).
99. Leviticus 13:10 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
100. Leviticus 13:10 tn Heb “and rawness [i.e., something living] of living flesh is in the swelling”; KJV, NASB, NRSV “quick raw flesh.”
101. Leviticus 13:11 tn The term rendered here “chronic” is a Niphal participle meaning “grown old” (HALOT 448 s.v. II ישׁן nif.2). The idea is that this is an old enduring skin disease that keeps on developing or recurring.
102. Leviticus 13:11 tn Heb “in the skin of his flesh” as opposed to the head or the beard (v. 29; cf. v. 2 above).
103. Leviticus 13:11 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tameʾ, cf. the note on v. 3 above).
104. Leviticus 13:11 tn Heb “he”; the referent (the priest) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
105. Leviticus 13:11 sn Instead of just the normal quarantine isolation, this condition calls for the more drastic and enduring response stated in Lev 13:45-46. Raw flesh, of course, sometimes oozes blood to one degree or another, and blood flows are by nature impure (see, e.g., Lev 12 and 15; cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 191).
106. Leviticus 13:12 tn Heb “And if spreading [infinitive absolute] it spreads out [finite verb].” For the infinitive absolute used to highlight contrast rather than emphasis see GKC 343 §113.p.
107. Leviticus 13:12 tn Heb “all the skin of the infection,” but see v. 4 above.
108. Leviticus 13:12 tn Heb “to all the appearance of the eyes of the priest.”
109. Leviticus 13:13 tn Heb “and the priest shall see.” The pronoun “it” is unexpressed, but it should be assumed and it refers to the infection (cf. the note on v. 8 above).
110. Leviticus 13:13 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).
111. Leviticus 13:13 tn Heb “he shall pronounce the infection clean,” but see v. 4 above. Also, this is another use of the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher; cf. the note on v. 6 above).
112. Leviticus 13:13 tn Heb “all of him has turned white, and he is clean.”
113. Leviticus 13:14 tn Heb “and in the day of there appears in it living flesh.” Some English versions render this as “open sores” (cf. NCV, TEV, NLT).
114. Leviticus 13:15 tn Heb “and the priest shall see the living flesh.”
115. Leviticus 13:15 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tameʾ; cf. the note on v. 3 above).
116. Leviticus 13:16 tn Heb “Or if/when.”
117. Leviticus 13:16 tn Heb “the living flesh returns and is turned/changed to white.” The Hebrew verb “returns” is שׁוּב (shuv), which often functions adverbially when combined with a second verb as it is here (cf. “and is turned”) and, in such cases, is usually rendered “again” (see, e.g., GKC 386-87 §120.g). Another suggestion is that here שׁוּב means “to recede” (cf., e.g., 2 Kgs 20:9), so one could translate “the raw flesh recedes and turns white.” This would mean that the new “white” skin “has grown over” the raw flesh (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 79).
118. Leviticus 13:17 tn Heb “and the priest shall see it.”
119. Leviticus 13:17 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).
120. Leviticus 13:17 tn Heb “the priest shall pronounce the infection clean,” but see v. 4 above. Also, this is another use of the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher, cf. the note on v. 6 above).
121. Leviticus 13:18 tc Heb (MT) reads, “And flesh if/when there is in it, in its skin, a boil.” Smr has only “in it,” not “in its skin,” and a few medieval Hebrew mss as well as the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate have only “in its skin” (cf. v. 24 below), not “in it.” It does not effect the meaning of the verse, but one is tempted to suggest that “in it” (בוֹ, vo) was added in error as a partial dittography from the beginning of “in its skin” (בְעֹרוֹ, v^eʿoro).
122. Leviticus 13:19 tn Some English versions translate “it shall be shown to [or “be seen by”] the priest,” taking the infection to be the subject of the verb (e.g., KJV, NASB, RSV, NRSV). Based on the Hebrew grammar there is no way to be sure which is intended.
123. Leviticus 13:20 tn Heb “and the priest shall see.” The pronoun “it” is unexpressed, but it should be assumed and it refers to the infection (cf. the note on v. 8 above).
124. Leviticus 13:20 tn Heb “and behold.”
125. Leviticus 13:20 tn Heb “and behold its appearance is low (שָׁפָל, shafal) ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, “lower than”) the skin.” Compare “deeper” in v. 3 above where, however, a different word is used (עָמֹק, ʿamoq), and see the note on “swelling” in v. 1 above (cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 192; note that, contrary to the MT, one Hebrew ms (Cairo Geniza) has עָמֹק in this verse as well as v. 4). The alternation of these two terms (i.e., “deeper” and “lower”) in vv. 25-26 below shows that they both refer to the same phenomenon. Some have argued that “this sore was lower than the surrounding skin” (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:773, 788), in which case “swelling” would be an inappropriate translation of שְׂאֵת (s^eʾet) in v. 19. It seems unlikely, however, that the surface of a “boil” would sink below the surface of the surrounding skin. The infectious pus etc. that makes up a boil normally causes swelling.
126. Leviticus 13:20 tn The declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tameʾ, cf. the note on v. 3 above).
127. Leviticus 13:20 tn Heb “It is an infection of disease. In the boil it has broken out.” For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above.
128. Leviticus 13:21 tn Heb “and if.”
129. Leviticus 13:21 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).
130. Leviticus 13:21 tn Heb “and the priest will shut him up seven days.”
131. Leviticus 13:22 tn Heb “and if.”
132. Leviticus 13:22 tn Heb “is indeed spreading.”
133. Leviticus 13:22 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tameʾ, cf. the note on v. 3 above).
134. Leviticus 13:23 tn Heb “and if under it the bright spot stands, it has not spread.”
135. Leviticus 13:23 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher, cf. the note on v. 6 above).
136. Leviticus 13:24 tn Heb “Or a body, if there is in its skin a burn of fire.”
137. Leviticus 13:25 tn Heb “and the priest shall see it.”
138. Leviticus 13:25 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
139. Leviticus 13:25 tn Heb “and its appearance is deep ‘from’ [comparative מִן (min) meaning ‘deeper than’] the skin.”
140. Leviticus 13:25 tn Heb “it is a disease. In the burn it has broken out.”
141. Leviticus 13:25 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tameʾ; cf. the note on v. 3 above).
142. Leviticus 13:25 tn For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above.
143. Leviticus 13:26 tn Heb “and if.”
144. Leviticus 13:26 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “and indeed.”
145. Leviticus 13:26 tn Heb “and low it is not ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, “lower than”) the skin.” See the note on v. 20 above. Cf. TEV “not deeper than the surrounding skin.”
146. Leviticus 13:26 tn Heb “and the priest will shut him up seven days.”
147. Leviticus 13:27 tn Heb “is indeed spreading.”
148. Leviticus 13:27 tn For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above.
149. Leviticus 13:28 tn Heb “and if under it the bright spot stands, it has not spread in the skin.”
150. Leviticus 13:28 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher; cf. the note on v. 6 above).
151. Leviticus 13:29 tn Heb “And a man or a woman if there is in him an infection in head or in beard.” sn The shift here is from diseases that are on the (relatively) bare skin of the body to the scalp area of the male or female head or the bearded area of the male face.
152. Leviticus 13:30 tn Heb “and the priest shall see the infection.”
153. Leviticus 13:30 tn Heb “and behold.”
154. Leviticus 13:30 tn Heb “its appearance is deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, “deeper than”) the skin.”
155. Leviticus 13:30 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tameʾ; cf. the note on v. 3 above).
156. Leviticus 13:30 tn The exact identification of this disease is unknown. Cf. KJV “dry scall”; NASB “a scale”; NIV, NCV, NRSV “an itch”; NLT “a contagious skin disease.” For a discussion of “scall” disease in the hair, which is a crusty scabby disease of the skin under the hair that also affects the hair itself, see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 192-93, and J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:793-94. The Hebrew word rendered “scall” (נֶתֶק, neteq) is related to a verb meaning “to tear; to tear out; to tear apart.” It may derive from the scratching and/or the tearing out of the hair or the scales of the skin in response to the itching sensation caused by the disease.
157. Leviticus 13:30 tn Heb “It is scall. It is the disease of the head or the beard.”
158. Leviticus 13:31 tn Heb “and behold there is not its appearance deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, meaning “deeper than”) the skin.”
159. Leviticus 13:31 tn Heb “and the priest will shut up the infection of the scall seven days.”
160. Leviticus 13:32 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
161. Leviticus 13:32 tn Heb “and the appearance of the scall is not deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, meaning “deeper than”) the skin.”
162. Leviticus 13:33 tn The shaving is done by the one who has the infection. Although KJV, ASV have the passive “he shall be shaven” here, most modern English versions have the reflexive “shall shave himself” (so NAB).
163. Leviticus 13:33 tn Heb “but the scall shall he not shave” (so KJV, ASV); NIV “except for the diseased area.”
164. Leviticus 13:33 tn Heb “and the priest will shut up the scall a second seven days.”
165. Leviticus 13:34 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
166. Leviticus 13:34 tn Heb “and its appearance is not deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, meaning “deeper than”) the skin.”
167. Leviticus 13:34 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher, cf. the note on v. 6 above).
168. Leviticus 13:35 tn Heb “And if spreading (infinitive absolute) it spreads further (finite verb).” For the infinitive absolute used to highlight contrast rather than emphasis see GKC 343 §113.p.
169. Leviticus 13:36 tn Heb “and behold.”
170. Leviticus 13:36 tn Heb “the priest shall not search to the reddish yellow hair.”
171. Leviticus 13:36 tn Heb “he”; the referent (the affected person) is specified in the translation for clarity (likewise in the following verse).
172. Leviticus 13:37 tn Heb “and if in his eyes the infection has stood.”
173. Leviticus 13:37 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher, cf. the note on v. 6 above).
174. Leviticus 13:39 tn Heb “and the priest shall see.”
175. Leviticus 13:39 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
176. Leviticus 13:39 tn Heb “he,” but the regulation applies to a man or a woman (v. 38a). In the translation “the person” is used to specify the referent more clearly.
177. Leviticus 13:40 tn Heb “And a man, when his head is rubbed bare, he is bald-headed.” The translation offered here, referring to the back of the head (i.e., the area from the top of the head sloping backwards), is based on the contrast between this condition and that of the following verse. See also B. A. Levine, Leviticus (JPSTC), 82.
178. Leviticus 13:41 tn Heb “And if from the front edge of his face, his head is rubbed bare.” See the note on v. 40 above.
179. Leviticus 13:41 tn The rendering “balding in front” corresponds to the location of the bareness at the beginning of the verse.
180. Leviticus 13:43 tn Heb “and the priest shall see it” (cf. KJV). The MT has “him/it” which some take to refer to the person as a whole (i.e., “him”; see, e.g., J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:770; NIV, NRSV, etc.), while others take it as a reference to the “infection” (נֶגַע, negaʿ) in v. 42 (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 172, 177). Smr has “her/it,” which would probably refer to “disease” (צָרַעַת, tsaraʿat) in v. 42. The general pattern in the chapter suggests that “it,” either the infection or the disease, is the object of the examination (see, e.g., v. 3 above and v. 50 below).
181. Leviticus 13:43 tn Heb “and behold.”
182. Leviticus 13:43 tn Heb “like appearance of disease of skin of flesh.”
183. Leviticus 13:44 tn Or perhaps translate, “His infection [is] on his head,” as a separate independent sentence (cf. KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV). There is no causal expression in the Hebrew text connecting these two clauses, but the logical relationship between them seems to be causal.
184. Leviticus 13:45 tn Heb “And the diseased one who in him is the infection.”
185. Leviticus 13:45 tn Heb “and his head shall be unbound, and he shall cover on [his] mustache.” Tearing one’s clothing, allowing the hair to hang loose rather than bound up in a turban, and covering the mustache on the upper lip are all ways of expressing shame, grief, or distress (cf., e.g., Lev 10:6 and Micah 3:7).
186. Leviticus 13:46 tn Heb “All the days which the infection is in him.”
187. Leviticus 13:47 tn Heb “And the garment, if there is in it a mark of disease.”
188. Leviticus 13:47 tn Heb “in a wool garment or in a linen garment.”
189. Leviticus 13:48 sn The warp (vertical) and woof (horizontal) thread may be two different sets of thread not yet woven together, or they may refer to two different kinds of thread already woven, in which case one might have the disease in it while the other does not. See the explanation in J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:809-10.
190. Leviticus 13:48 tn Heb “in any handiwork of skin” (cf. KJV, ASV, NRSV); most other modern English versions have “leather.”
191. Leviticus 13:49 tn Heb “and the infection is.” This clause is conditional in force, and is translated as such by almost all English versions.
192. Leviticus 13:50 tn Heb “And the priest shall see the infection and he shall shut up the infection seven days.”
193. Leviticus 13:51 tn Heb “to all which the leather was made into a handiwork.”
194. Leviticus 13:53 tn Heb “And if the priest sees and behold”; NASB “and indeed.”
195. Leviticus 13:54 tn Heb “a second seven days.”
196. Leviticus 13:55 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
197. Leviticus 13:55 tn Heb “the infection has not changed its eye.” Smr has “its/his eyes,” as in vv. 5 and 37, but here it refers to the appearance of the article of cloth or leather, unlike vv. 5 and 37 where there is a preposition attached and it refers to the eyes of the priest.
198. Leviticus 13:55 tn The terms “back side” and “front side” are the same as those used in v. 42 for the “back or front bald area” of a man’s head. The exact meaning of these terms when applied to articles of cloth or leather is uncertain. It could refer, for example, to the inside versus the outside of a garment, or the back versus the front side of an article of cloth or leather. See J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:814, for various possibilities.
199. Leviticus 13:56 tn Heb “And if the priest saw and behold….”
200. Leviticus 13:56 tn Heb “and he shall tear it from.”
201. Leviticus 13:57 tn Heb “And if”; NIV, NCV “But if”; NAB “If, however.”
202. Leviticus 13:58 tn Heb “and the infection turns aside from them.”
203. Leviticus 13:59 sn The Hebrew term translated “law” (תּוֹרָה, torah) introduces here a summary or colophon for all of Lev 13. Similar summaries are found in Lev 7:37-38; 11:46-47; 14:54-57; and 15:32-33.
204. Leviticus 13:59 tn These are declarative Piel forms of the verbs טָהֵר (taher) and טָמֵא (tameʾ) respectively (cf. the notes on vv. 3 and 6 above).