Imamat 13:2
Konteks13:2 “When someone has 1 a swelling 2 or a scab 3 or a bright spot 4 on the skin of his body 5 that may become a diseased infection, 6 he must be brought to Aaron the priest or one of his sons, the priests. 7
Imamat 13:4
Konteks13:4 “If 8 it is a white bright spot on the skin of his body, but it does not appear to be deeper than the skin, 9 and the hair has not turned white, then the priest is to quarantine the person with the infection for seven days. 10
Imamat 13:25
Konteks13:25 the priest must examine it, 11 and if 12 the hair has turned white in the bright spot and it appears to be deeper than the skin, 13 it is a disease that has broken out in the burn. 14 The priest is to pronounce the person unclean. 15 It is a diseased infection. 16
Imamat 13:30
Konteks13:30 the priest is to examine the infection, 17 and if 18 it appears to be deeper than the skin 19 and the hair in it is reddish yellow and thin, then the priest is to pronounce the person unclean. 20 It is scall, 21 a disease of the head or the beard. 22
Imamat 13:32
Konteks13:32 The priest must then examine the infection on the seventh day, and if 23 the scall has not spread, there is no reddish yellow hair in it, and the scall does not appear to be deeper than the skin, 24
Imamat 13:52
Konteks13:52 He must burn the garment or the warp or the woof, whether wool or linen, or any article of leather which has the infection in it. Because it is a malignant disease it must be burned up in the fire.
Imamat 13:56-57
Konteks13:56 But if the priest has examined it and 25 the infection has faded after it has been washed, he is to tear it out of 26 the garment or the leather or the warp or the woof. 13:57 Then if 27 it still appears again in the garment or the warp or the woof, or in any article of leather, it is an outbreak. Whatever has the infection in it you must burn up in the fire.
Imamat 13:59
Konteks13:59 This is the law 28 of the diseased infection in the garment of wool or linen, or the warp or woof, or any article of leather, for pronouncing it clean or unclean. 29
Imamat 14:36
Konteks14:36 Then the priest will command that the house be cleared 30 before the priest enters to examine the infection 31 so that everything in the house 32 does not become unclean, 33 and afterward 34 the priest will enter to examine the house.
[13:2] 1 tn Heb “A man, if [or when] he has….” The term for “a man, human being” (אָדָם, ’adam; 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.
[13:2] 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 (sÿ’et) as “swelling,” which has been retained here (see the explanation in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 189). Some have argued that “deeper (עָמֹק, ’amoq) 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.
[13:2] 3 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.
[13:2] 4 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.”
[13:2] 5 tn Heb “in the skin of his flesh” as opposed to the head or the beard (v. 29).
[13:2] 6 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 (tsara’at) 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”).
[13:2] 7 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.
[13:4] 9 tn Heb “and deep is not its appearance from the skin”; cf. NAB “does not seem to have penetrated below the skin.”
[13:4] 10 tn Heb “and the priest will shut up the infection seven days.”
[13:25] 11 tn Heb “and the priest shall see it.”
[13:25] 12 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
[13:25] 13 tn Heb “and its appearance is deep ‘from’ [comparative מִן (min) meaning ‘deeper than’] the skin.”
[13:25] 14 tn Heb “it is a disease. In the burn it has broken out.”
[13:25] 15 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’; cf. the note on v. 3 above).
[13:25] 16 tn For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above.
[13:30] 17 tn Heb “and the priest shall see the infection.”
[13:30] 18 tn Heb “and behold.”
[13:30] 19 tn Heb “its appearance is deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, “deeper than”) the skin.”
[13:30] 20 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’; cf. the note on v. 3 above).
[13:30] 21 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.
[13:30] 22 tn Heb “It is scall. It is the disease of the head or the beard.”
[13:32] 23 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
[13:32] 24 tn Heb “and the appearance of the scall is not deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, meaning “deeper than”) the skin.”
[13:56] 25 tn Heb “And if the priest saw and behold….”
[13:56] 26 tn Heb “and he shall tear it from.”
[13:57] 27 tn Heb “And if”; NIV, NCV “But if”; NAB “If, however.”
[13:59] 28 sn The Hebrew term translated “law” (תוֹרָה, 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.
[13:59] 29 tn These are declarative Piel forms of the verbs טָהֵר (taher) and טָמֵא (tame’) respectively (cf. the notes on vv. 3 and 6 above).
[14:36] 30 tn Heb “And the priest shall command and they shall clear the house.” The second verb (“and they shall clear”) states the thrust of the priest’s command, which suggests the translation “that they clear” (cf. also vv. 4a and 5a above), and for the impersonal passive rendering of the active verb (“that the house be cleared”) see the note on v. 4 above.
[14:36] 31 tn Heb “to see the infection”; KJV “to see the plague”; NASB “to look at the mark (mildew NCV).”
[14:36] 32 tn Heb “all which [is] in the house.”
[14:36] 33 sn Once the priest pronounced the house “unclean” everything in it was also officially unclean. Therefore, if they emptied the house of its furniture, etc. before the official pronouncement by the priest those possessions would thereby remain officially “clean” and avoid destruction or purification procedures.
