Imamat 5:2-3
Konteks5:2 Or when there is 1 a person who touches anything ceremonially 2 unclean, whether the carcass of an unclean wild animal, or the carcass of an unclean domesticated animal, or the carcass of an unclean creeping thing, even if he did not realize it, 3 but he himself has become unclean and is guilty; 4 5:3 or when he touches human uncleanness with regard to anything by which he can become unclean, 5 even if he did not realize it, but he himself has later come to know it and is guilty;
Imamat 12:1--13:59
Konteks12:1 The Lord spoke to Moses: 12:2 “Tell the Israelites, ‘When a woman produces offspring 6 and bears a male child, 7 she will be unclean seven days, as she is unclean during the days of her menstruation. 8 12:3 On 9 the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin 10 must be circumcised. 12:4 Then she will remain 11 thirty-three days in blood purity. 12 She must not touch anything holy and she must not enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are fulfilled. 13 12:5 If she bears a female child, she will be impure fourteen days as during her menstrual flow, and she will remain sixty-six days in 14 blood purity. 15
12:6 “‘When 16 the days of her purification are completed for a son or for a daughter, she must bring a one year old lamb 17 for a burnt offering 18 and a young pigeon or turtledove for a sin offering 19 to the entrance of the Meeting Tent, to the priest. 12:7 The priest 20 is to present it before the Lord and make atonement 21 on her behalf, and she will be clean 22 from her flow of blood. 23 This is the law of the one who bears a child, for the male or the female child. 12:8 If she cannot afford a sheep, 24 then she must take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, 25 one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering, and the priest is to make atonement on her behalf, and she will be clean.’” 26
13:1 The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron: 13:2 “When someone has 27 a swelling 28 or a scab 29 or a bright spot 30 on the skin of his body 31 that may become a diseased infection, 32 he must be brought to Aaron the priest or one of his sons, the priests. 33 13:3 The priest must then examine the infection 34 on the skin of the body, and if the hair 35 in the infection has turned white and the infection appears to be deeper than the skin of the body, 36 then it is a diseased infection, 37 so when the priest examines it 38 he must pronounce the person unclean. 39
13:4 “If 40 it is a white bright spot on the skin of his body, but it does not appear to be deeper than the skin, 41 and the hair has not turned white, then the priest is to quarantine the person with the infection for seven days. 42 13:5 The priest must then examine it on the seventh day, and if, 43 as far as he can see, the infection has stayed the same 44 and has not spread on the skin, 45 then the priest is to quarantine the person for another seven days. 46 13:6 The priest must then examine it again on the seventh day, 47 and if 48 the infection has faded and has not spread on the skin, then the priest is to pronounce the person clean. 49 It is a scab, 50 so he must wash his clothes 51 and be clean. 13:7 If, however, the scab is spreading further 52 on the skin after he has shown himself to the priest for his purification, then he must show himself to the priest a second time. 13:8 The priest must then examine it, 53 and if 54 the scab has spread on the skin, then the priest is to pronounce the person unclean. 55 It is a disease.
13:9 “When someone has a diseased infection, 56 he must be brought to the priest. 13:10 The priest will then examine it, 57 and if 58 a white swelling is on the skin, it has turned the hair white, and there is raw flesh in the swelling, 59 13:11 it is a chronic 60 disease on the skin of his body, 61 so the priest is to pronounce him unclean. 62 The priest 63 must not merely quarantine him, for he is unclean. 64 13:12 If, however, the disease breaks out 65 on the skin so that the disease covers all the skin of the person with the infection 66 from his head to his feet, as far as the priest can see, 67 13:13 the priest must then examine it, 68 and if 69 the disease covers his whole body, he is to pronounce the person with the infection clean. 70 He has turned all white, so he is clean. 71 13:14 But whenever raw flesh appears in it 72 he will be unclean, 13:15 so the priest is to examine the raw flesh 73 and pronounce him unclean 74 – it is diseased. 13:16 If, however, 75 the raw flesh once again turns white, 76 then he must come to the priest. 13:17 The priest will then examine it, 77 and if 78 the infection has turned white, the priest is to pronounce the person with the infection clean 79 – he is clean.
13:18 “When someone’s body has a boil on its skin 80 and it heals, 13:19 and in the place of the boil there is a white swelling or a reddish white bright spot, he must show himself to the priest. 81 13:20 The priest will then examine it, 82 and if 83 it appears to be deeper than the skin 84 and its hair has turned white, then the priest is to pronounce the person unclean. 85 It is a diseased infection that has broken out in the boil. 86 13:21 If, however, 87 the priest examines it, and 88 there is no white hair in it, it is not deeper than the skin, and it has faded, then the priest is to quarantine him for seven days. 89 13:22 If 90 it is spreading further 91 on the skin, then the priest is to pronounce him unclean. 92 It is an infection. 13:23 But if the bright spot stays in its place and has not spread, 93 it is the scar of the boil, so the priest is to pronounce him clean. 94
13:24 “When a body has a burn on its skin 95 and the raw area of the burn becomes a reddish white or white bright spot, 13:25 the priest must examine it, 96 and if 97 the hair has turned white in the bright spot and it appears to be deeper than the skin, 98 it is a disease that has broken out in the burn. 99 The priest is to pronounce the person unclean. 100 It is a diseased infection. 101 13:26 If, however, 102 the priest examines it and 103 there is no white hair in the bright spot, it is not deeper than the skin, 104 and it has faded, then the priest is to quarantine him for seven days. 105 13:27 The priest must then examine it on the seventh day, and if it is spreading further 106 on the skin, then the priest is to pronounce him unclean. It is a diseased infection. 107 13:28 But if the bright spot stays in its place, has not spread on the skin, 108 and it has faded, then it is the swelling of the burn, so the priest is to pronounce him clean, 109 because it is the scar of the burn.
13:29 “When a man or a woman has an infection on the head or in the beard, 110 13:30 the priest is to examine the infection, 111 and if 112 it appears to be deeper than the skin 113 and the hair in it is reddish yellow and thin, then the priest is to pronounce the person unclean. 114 It is scall, 115 a disease of the head or the beard. 116 13:31 But if the priest examines the scall infection and it does not appear to be deeper than the skin, 117 and there is no black hair in it, then the priest is to quarantine the person with the scall infection for seven days. 118 13:32 The priest must then examine the infection on the seventh day, and if 119 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, 120 13:33 then the individual is to shave himself, 121 but he must not shave the area affected by the scall, 122 and the priest is to quarantine the person with the scall for another seven days. 123 13:34 The priest must then examine the scall on the seventh day, and if 124 the scall has not spread on the skin and it does not appear to be deeper than the skin, 125 then the priest is to pronounce him clean. 126 So he is to wash his clothes and be clean. 13:35 If, however, the scall spreads further 127 on the skin after his purification, 13:36 then the priest is to examine it, and if 128 the scall has spread on the skin the priest is not to search further for reddish yellow hair. 129 The person 130 is unclean. 13:37 If, as far as the priest can see, the scall has stayed the same 131 and black hair has sprouted in it, the scall has been healed; the person is clean. So the priest is to pronounce him clean. 132
13:38 “When a man or a woman has bright spots – white bright spots – on the skin of their body, 13:39 the priest is to examine them, 133 and if 134 the bright spots on the skin of their body are faded white, it is a harmless rash that has broken out on the skin. The person is clean. 135
13:40 “When a man’s head is bare so that he is balding in back, 136 he is clean. 13:41 If his head is bare on the forehead 137 so that he is balding in front, 138 he is clean. 13:42 But if there is a reddish white infection in the back or front bald area, it is a disease breaking out in his back or front bald area. 13:43 The priest is to examine it, 139 and if 140 the swelling of the infection is reddish white in the back or front bald area like the appearance of a disease on the skin of the body, 141 13:44 he is a diseased man. He is unclean. The priest must surely pronounce him unclean because of his infection on his head. 142
13:45 “As for the diseased person who has the infection, 143 his clothes must be torn, the hair of his head must be unbound, he must cover his mustache, 144 and he must call out ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ 13:46 The whole time he has the infection 145 he will be continually unclean. He must live in isolation, and his place of residence must be outside the camp.
13:47 “When a garment has a diseased infection in it, 146 whether a wool or linen garment, 147 13:48 or in the warp or woof 148 of the linen or the wool, or in leather or anything made of leather, 149 13:49 if the infection 150 in the garment or leather or warp or woof or any article of leather is yellowish green or reddish, it is a diseased infection and it must be shown to the priest. 13:50 The priest is to examine and then quarantine the article with the infection for seven days. 151 13:51 He must then examine the infection on the seventh day. If the infection has spread in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in the leather – whatever the article into which the leather was made 152 – the infection is a malignant disease. It is unclean. 13:52 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. 13:53 But if the priest examines it and 153 the infection has not spread in the garment or in the warp or in the woof or in any article of leather, 13:54 the priest is to command that they wash whatever has the infection and quarantine it for another seven days. 154 13:55 The priest must then examine it after the infection has been washed out, and if 155 the infection has not changed its appearance 156 even though the infection has not spread, it is unclean. You must burn it up in the fire. It is a fungus, whether on the back side or front side of the article. 157 13:56 But if the priest has examined it and 158 the infection has faded after it has been washed, he is to tear it out of 159 the garment or the leather or the warp or the woof. 13:57 Then if 160 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. 13:58 But the garment or the warp or the woof or any article of leather which you wash and infection disappears from it 161 is to be washed a second time and it will be clean.”
13:59 This is the law 162 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. 163
Imamat 15:1-33
Konteks15:1 The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron: 15:2 “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘When any man 164 has a discharge 165 from his body, 166 his discharge is unclean. 15:3 Now this is his uncleanness in regard to his discharge 167 – whether his body secretes his discharge or blocks his discharge, he is unclean. All the days that his body has a discharge or his body blocks his discharge, 168 this is his uncleanness. 169
15:4 “‘Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be unclean, 170 and any furniture he sits on will be unclean. 171 15:5 Anyone who touches his bed 172 must wash his clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. 173 15:6 The one who sits on the furniture the man with a discharge sits on must wash his clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. 15:7 The one who touches the body 174 of the man with a discharge must wash his clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. 15:8 If the man with a discharge spits on a person who is ceremonially clean, 175 that person must wash his clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. 15:9 Any means of riding 176 the man with a discharge rides on will be unclean. 15:10 Anyone who touches anything that was under him 177 will be unclean until evening, and the one who carries those items 178 must wash his clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. 15:11 Anyone whom the man with the discharge touches without having rinsed his hands in water 179 must wash his clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. 15:12 A clay vessel 180 which the man with the discharge touches must be broken, and any wooden utensil must be rinsed in water.
15:13 “‘When the man with the discharge becomes clean from his discharge he is to count off for himself seven days for his purification, and he must wash his clothes, bathe in fresh water, 181 and be clean. 15:14 Then on the eighth day he is to take for himself two turtledoves or two young pigeons, 182 and he is to present himself 183 before the Lord at the entrance of the Meeting Tent and give them to the priest, 15:15 and the priest is to make one of them a sin offering 184 and the other a burnt offering. 185 So the priest 186 is to make atonement for him before the Lord for 187 his discharge.
15:16 “‘When a man has a seminal emission, 188 he must bathe his whole body in water 189 and be unclean until evening, 15:17 and he must wash in water any clothing or leather that has semen on it, and it will be unclean until evening. 15:18 When a man has sexual intercourse with a woman and there is a seminal emission, 190 they must bathe in water and be unclean until evening.
15:19 “‘When a woman has a discharge 191 and her discharge is blood from her body, 192 she is to be in her menstruation 193 seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean until evening. 15:20 Anything she lies on during her menstruation will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 15:21 Anyone who touches her bed must wash his clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. 15:22 Anyone who touches any furniture she sits on must wash his clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. 15:23 If there is something on the bed or on the furniture she sits on, 194 when he touches it 195 he will be unclean until evening, 15:24 and if a man actually has sexual intercourse with her so that her menstrual impurity touches him, 196 then he will be unclean seven days and any bed he lies on will be unclean.
15:25 “‘When a woman’s discharge of blood flows 197 many days not at the time of her menstruation, or if it flows beyond the time of her menstruation, 198 all the days of her discharge of impurity will be like the days of her menstruation – she is unclean. 15:26 Any bed she lies on all the days of her discharge will be to her like the bed of her menstruation, any furniture she sits on will be unclean like the impurity of her menstruation, 15:27 and anyone who touches them will be unclean, and he must wash his clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. 199
15:28 “‘If 200 she becomes clean from her discharge, then she is to count off for herself seven days, and afterward she will be clean. 15:29 Then on the eighth day she must take for herself two turtledoves or two young pigeons 201 and she must bring them to the priest at the entrance of the Meeting Tent, 15:30 and the priest is to make one a sin offering and the other a burnt offering. 202 So the priest 203 is to make atonement for her before the Lord from her discharge of impurity.
15:31 “‘Thus you 204 are to set the Israelites apart from their impurity so that they 205 do not die in their impurity by defiling my tabernacle which is in their midst. 15:32 This is the law of the one with a discharge: the one who has a seminal emission 206 and becomes unclean by it, 207 15:33 the one who is sick in her menstruation, the one with a discharge, whether male or female, 208 and a man 209 who has sexual intercourse with an unclean woman.’”
Imamat 22:4
Konteks22:4 No man 210 from the descendants of Aaron who is diseased or has a discharge 211 may eat the holy offerings until he becomes clean. The one 212 who touches anything made unclean by contact with a dead person, 213 or a man who has a seminal emission, 214
[5:2] 1 tc The insertion of the words “when there is” is a reflection of the few Hebrew
[5:2] 2 tn The word “ceremonially” has been supplied in the translation to clarify that the uncleanness involved is ritual or ceremonial in nature.
[5:2] 3 tn Heb “and it is hidden from him,” meaning that the person who contracted the ceremonial uncleanness was not aware at the time what had happened, but later found out that he had become ceremonially unclean. This same phrase occurs again in both vv. 3 and 4.
[5:2] 4 sn Lev 5:2-3 are parallel laws of uncleanness (contracted from animals and people, respectively), and both seem to assume that the contraction of uncleanness was originally unknown to the person (vv. 2 and 3) but became known to him or her at a later time (v. 3; i.e., “has come to know” in v. 3 is to be assumed for v. 2 as well). Uncleanness itself did not make a person “guilty” unless he or she failed to handle it according to the normal purification regulations (see, e.g., “wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening,” Lev 15:5 NIV; cf. Lev 11:39-40; 15:5-12, 16-24; Num 19, etc.). The problem here in Lev 5:2-3 is that, because the person had not been aware of his or her uncleanness, he or she had incurred guilt for not carrying out these regular procedures, and it would now be too late for that. Thus, the unclean person needs to bring a sin offering to atone for the contamination caused by his or her neglect of the purity regulations.
[5:3] 5 tn Heb “or if he touches uncleanness of mankind to any of his uncleanness which he becomes unclean in it.”
[12:2] 6 tn Heb “produces seed” (Hiphil of זָרַע, zara’; 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”).
[12:2] 7 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).
[12:2] 8 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.”
[12:2] sn See Lev 15:19-24 for the standard purity regulations for a woman’s menstrual period.
[12:3] 10 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).
[12:4] 11 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).
[12:4] 12 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.
[12:4] 13 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.
[12:5] 14 tn Heb “on purity blood.” The preposition here is עַל (’al) rather than בְּ (bÿ, as it is in the middle of v. 4), but no doubt the same meaning is intended.
[12:5] 15 tn For clarification of the translation here, see the notes on vv. 2-4 above.
[12:5] 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).
[12:6] 16 tn Heb “And when” (so KJV, NASB). Many recent English versions leave the conjunction untranslated.
[12:6] 17 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.”
[12:6] 18 sn See the note on Lev 1:3 regarding the “burnt offering.”
[12:6] 19 sn See the note on Lev 4:3 regarding the term “sin offering.”
[12:7] 20 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.
[12:7] 21 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
[12:7] 22 tn Or “she will be[come] pure.”
[12:7] 23 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.”
[12:8] 24 tn Heb “If her hand cannot find the sufficiency of a sheep.” Many English versions render this as “lamb.”
[12:8] 25 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).
[12:8] 26 tn Or “she will be[come] pure.”
[13:2] 27 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] 28 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] 29 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] 30 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] 31 tn Heb “in the skin of his flesh” as opposed to the head or the beard (v. 29).
[13:2] 32 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] 33 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.
[13:3] 34 tn Heb “and the priest shall see the infection.”
[13:3] 35 tn There is no “if” expressed, but the contrast between the priestly finding in this verse and the next verse clearly implies it.
[13:3] 36 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.
[13:3] 37 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.”
[13:3] 38 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).
[13:3] 39 tn Heb “he shall make him unclean.” The verb is the Piel of טָמֵא (tame’) “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).
[13:4] 41 tn Heb “and deep is not its appearance from the skin”; cf. NAB “does not seem to have penetrated below the skin.”
[13:4] 42 tn Heb “and the priest will shut up the infection seven days.”
[13:5] 43 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
[13:5] 44 tn Heb “the infection has stood in his eyes”; ASV “if in his eyes the plague be at a stay.”
[13:5] 45 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.
[13:5] 46 tn Heb “a second seven days.”
[13:6] 47 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.
[13:6] 48 tn Heb “and behold.”
[13:6] 49 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).
[13:6] 50 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.”
[13:6] 51 tn Heb “and he shall wash his clothes.”
[13:7] 52 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.
[13:8] 53 tn The “it” is not expressed but is to be understood. It refers to the “infection” (cf. the note on v. 2 above).
[13:8] 54 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
[13:8] 55 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’, cf. the note on v. 3 above).
[13:9] 56 tn Heb “When there is an infection of disease in a man.” The term for “a man; a human being” (אָדָם, ’adam; 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.
[13:10] 57 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).
[13:10] 58 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
[13:10] 59 tn Heb “and rawness [i.e., something living] of living flesh is in the swelling”; KJV, NASB, NRSV “quick raw flesh.”
[13:11] 60 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.
[13:11] 61 tn Heb “in the skin of his flesh” as opposed to the head or the beard (v. 29; cf. v. 2 above).
[13:11] 62 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’, cf. the note on v. 3 above).
[13:11] 63 tn Heb “he”; the referent (the priest) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[13:11] 64 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).
[13:12] 65 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.
[13:12] 66 tn Heb “all the skin of the infection,” but see v. 4 above.
[13:12] 67 tn Heb “to all the appearance of the eyes of the priest.”
[13:13] 68 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).
[13:13] 69 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).
[13:13] 70 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).
[13:13] 71 tn Heb “all of him has turned white, and he is clean.”
[13:14] 72 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).
[13:15] 73 tn Heb “and the priest shall see the living flesh.”
[13:15] 74 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’; cf. the note on v. 3 above).
[13:16] 75 tn Heb “Or if/when.”
[13:16] 76 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).
[13:17] 77 tn Heb “and the priest shall see it.”
[13:17] 78 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).
[13:17] 79 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).
[13:18] 80 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
[13:19] 81 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.
[13:20] 82 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).
[13:20] 83 tn Heb “and behold.”
[13:20] 84 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, ’amoq), and see the note on “swelling” in v. 1 above (cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 192; note that, contrary to the MT, Tg. Onq. 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 (sÿ’et) 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.
[13:20] 85 tn The declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’, cf. the note on v. 3 above).
[13:20] 86 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.
[13:21] 88 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).
[13:21] 89 tn Heb “and the priest will shut him up seven days.”
[13:22] 91 tn Heb “is indeed spreading.”
[13:22] 92 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’, cf. the note on v. 3 above).
[13:23] 93 tn Heb “and if under it the bright spot stands, it has not spread.”
[13:23] 94 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher, cf. the note on v. 6 above).
[13:24] 95 tn Heb “Or a body, if there is in its skin a burn of fire.”
[13:25] 96 tn Heb “and the priest shall see it.”
[13:25] 97 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
[13:25] 98 tn Heb “and its appearance is deep ‘from’ [comparative מִן (min) meaning ‘deeper than’] the skin.”
[13:25] 99 tn Heb “it is a disease. In the burn it has broken out.”
[13:25] 100 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’; cf. the note on v. 3 above).
[13:25] 101 tn For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above.
[13:26] 103 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “and indeed.”
[13:26] 104 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.”
[13:26] 105 tn Heb “and the priest will shut him up seven days.”
[13:27] 106 tn Heb “is indeed spreading.”
[13:27] 107 tn For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above.
[13:28] 108 tn Heb “and if under it the bright spot stands, it has not spread in the skin.”
[13:28] 109 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher; cf. the note on v. 6 above).
[13:29] 110 tn Heb “And a man or a woman if there is in him an infection in head or in beard.”
[13:29] 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.
[13:30] 111 tn Heb “and the priest shall see the infection.”
[13:30] 112 tn Heb “and behold.”
[13:30] 113 tn Heb “its appearance is deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, “deeper than”) the skin.”
[13:30] 114 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’; cf. the note on v. 3 above).
[13:30] 115 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] 116 tn Heb “It is scall. It is the disease of the head or the beard.”
[13:31] 117 tn Heb “and behold there is not its appearance deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, meaning “deeper than”) the skin.”
[13:31] 118 tn Heb “and the priest will shut up the infection of the scall seven days.”
[13:32] 119 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
[13:32] 120 tn Heb “and the appearance of the scall is not deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, meaning “deeper than”) the skin.”
[13:33] 121 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).
[13:33] 122 tn Heb “but the scall shall he not shave” (so KJV, ASV); NIV “except for the diseased area.”
[13:33] 123 tn Heb “and the priest will shut up the scall a second seven days.”
[13:34] 124 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
[13:34] 125 tn Heb “and its appearance is not deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, meaning “deeper than”) the skin.”
[13:34] 126 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher, cf. the note on v. 6 above).
[13:35] 127 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.
[13:36] 128 tn Heb “and behold.”
[13:36] 129 tn Heb “the priest shall not search to the reddish yellow hair.”
[13:36] 130 tn Heb “he”; the referent (the affected person) is specified in the translation for clarity (likewise in the following verse).
[13:37] 131 tn Heb “and if in his eyes the infection has stood.”
[13:37] 132 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher, cf. the note on v. 6 above).
[13:39] 133 tn Heb “and the priest shall see.”
[13:39] 134 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
[13:39] 135 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.
[13:40] 136 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.
[13:41] 137 tn Heb “And if from the front edge of his face, his head is rubbed bare.” See the note on v. 40 above.
[13:41] 138 tn The rendering “balding in front” corresponds to the location of the bareness at the beginning of the verse.
[13:43] 139 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, nega’) in v. 42 (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 172, 177). Smr has “her/it,” which would probably refer to “disease” (צָרַעַת, tsara’at) 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).
[13:43] 140 tn Heb “and behold.”
[13:43] 141 tn Heb “like appearance of disease of skin of flesh.”
[13:44] 142 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.
[13:45] 143 tn Heb “And the diseased one who in him is the infection.”
[13:45] 144 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).
[13:46] 145 tn Heb “All the days which the infection is in him.”
[13:47] 146 tn Heb “And the garment, if there is in it a mark of disease.”
[13:47] 147 tn Heb “in a wool garment or in a linen garment.”
[13:48] 148 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.
[13:48] 149 tn Heb “in any handiwork of skin” (cf. KJV, ASV, NRSV); most other modern English versions have “leather.”
[13:49] 150 tn Heb “and the infection is.” This clause is conditional in force, and is translated as such by almost all English versions.
[13:50] 151 tn Heb “And the priest shall see the infection and he shall shut up the infection seven days.”
[13:51] 152 tn Heb “to all which the leather was made into a handiwork.”
[13:53] 153 tn Heb “And if the priest sees and behold”; NASB “and indeed.”
[13:54] 154 tn Heb “a second seven days.”
[13:55] 155 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
[13:55] 156 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.
[13:55] 157 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.
[13:56] 158 tn Heb “And if the priest saw and behold….”
[13:56] 159 tn Heb “and he shall tear it from.”
[13:57] 160 tn Heb “And if”; NIV, NCV “But if”; NAB “If, however.”
[13:58] 161 tn Heb “and the infection turns aside from them.”
[13:59] 162 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] 163 tn These are declarative Piel forms of the verbs טָהֵר (taher) and טָמֵא (tame’) respectively (cf. the notes on vv. 3 and 6 above).
[15:2] 164 tn Heb “Man man.” The reduplication is a way of saying “any man” (cf. Lev 17:3; 22:18, etc.; see the distributive repetition of the noun in GKC 395-96 §123.c).
[15:2] 165 tn The term “discharge” actually means “to flow,” whether referring to a full flow as at a spring of water (Ps 78:20 and parallels) or in reference to the promised land as “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Exod 3:8 and parallels).
[15:2] 166 tn Heb “man, man when there is a discharge from his flesh.” The repetition of the word “man” is distributive, meaning “any [or “every”] man” (GKC 395-96 §123.c). It is well-recognized that the term “flesh” (i.e., “body”) in this chapter refers regularly and euphemistically to the male and female genital members or areas of the body (HALOT 164 s.v. בָּשָׂר 5.b; see also, e.g., B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 93). The euphemism has been retained in this translation since it is, in fact, intended in the Hebrew text. Some English versions partially remove the euphemism (e.g., NAB “from his private parts”; NRSV “from his member”) while some remove it completely (e.g., NLT “a genital discharge”; TEV “from his penis”; CEV “with an infected penis”).
[15:3] 167 tn The LXX has “this the law of his uncleanness…” (cf. v. 32 and compare, e.g., 13:59; 14:2, 56).
[15:3] 168 tc Smr, LXX, and the Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll from Qumran (11QpaleoLev; Fragment G contains Lev 14:52-15:5 and 16:2-4, and agrees with the LXX of Lev 15:3b) are in essential (although not complete) agreement against the MT in Lev 15:3b and are to be preferred in this case. The shorter MT text has probably arisen due to a lengthy haplography. See K. A. Mathews, “The Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) and the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” CBQ 48 (1986): 177-78, 198; D. N. Freedman, “Variant Readings in the Leviticus Scroll from Qumran Cave 11,” CBQ 36 (1974): 528-29; D. N. Freedman and K. A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll, 32. The MT of Lev 15:3 reads: “Now this is his uncleanness in [regard to] his discharge – whether his body secretes his discharge or blocks his discharge, this is his uncleanness.” Smr adds after MT’s “blocks his discharge” the following: “he is unclean; all the days that his body has a discharge or his body blocks his discharge, this is his uncleanness.” Thus, the MT appears to skip from Smr טמא הוא “he is unclean” in the middle of the verse to יא/טמאתו הו “this is his uncleanness” at the end of the verse, leaving out “he is unclean; all the days that his body has a discharge or his body blocks his discharge” (cf. the BHS footnote). 11Q1 (paleoLeva frag. G) is indeed fragmentary, but it does have ימי ז בו כל “…in him, all the days of the fl[ow],” supporting Smr and LXX tradition. The LXX adds after MT “blocks his discharge” the following: “all the days of the flow of his body, by which his body is affected by the flow,” followed by “it is his uncleanness” (i.e., the last two words of the MT).
[15:3] sn The contrast between the dripping or flowing from the male sexual member as opposed to there being a blockage is important. One might not understand that even though a blockage actually causes a lack of discharge, it is still unclean.
[15:3] 169 tn Heb “it is his uncleanness,” but the last clause recapitulates the effect of the first clause in this verse, both of which introduce the regulations for such uncleanness in the following verses. In other words, whether his discharge flows from his penis or is blocked in it, he is still unclean and must proceed according to the following regulations (vv. 4ff).
[15:4] 170 tn Heb “All the bed which the man with a discharge sits on it shall be unclean”; cf. NLT “Any bedding.”
[15:4] 171 tn Heb “and all the vessel which he sits on it shall be unclean”; NASB “everything on which he sits.”
[15:5] 172 tn Heb “And a man who touches in his bed”; NLT “touch the man’s bedding.”
[15:5] 173 tn Heb “he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening” (cf. also vv. 6-8, 10-11, etc.).
[15:7] 174 tn Heb “And the one who touches in the flesh.” In this instance, “flesh” (or “body”) probably refers literally to any part of the body, not the genitals specifically (see the discussion in J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:914).
[15:8] 175 tn Heb “And if the man with a discharge spits in the clean one.”
[15:9] 176 tn The Hebrew term for “means of riding” is a cognate noun from the verb “ride” later in this verse. It refers to anything on which one may ride without the feet touching the ground including, for example, a saddle, a (saddle) blanket, or a seat on a chariot (see, e.g., J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:916).
[15:10] 177 tn Heb “which shall be under him.” The verb is perhaps a future perfect, “which shall have been.”
[15:10] 178 tn Heb “them”; the referent (the previously mentioned items which were under the unclean person) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[15:11] 179 tn Heb “And all who the man with the discharge touches in him and his hands he has not rinsed in water.”
[15:12] 180 tn The Hebrew term כְּלִי (kÿli) can mean “vessel” (v. 12a) or “utensil, implement, article” (v. 12b). An article of clay would refer to a vessel or container of some sort, while one made of wood would refer to some kind of tool or instrument.
[15:13] 181 tn For the expression “fresh water” see the note on Lev 14:5 above.
[15:14] 182 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).
[15:14] 183 tc The MT has the Qal form of the verb בּוֹא (bo’) “to come” here, but the LXX (followed generally by the Syriac and Tg. Ps.-J.) reflects the Hiphil form of the same verb, “to bring” as in v. 29 below. In v. 29, however, there is no additional clause “and give them to the priest,” so the Hiphil is necessary in that context while it is not necessary here in v. 14.
[15:15] 184 sn See the note on Lev 4:3 regarding the term “sin offering.”
[15:15] 185 tn Heb “and the priest shall make them one a sin offering and the one a burnt offering.” See the note on Lev 1:3 regarding the “burnt offering.”
[15:15] 186 tn Heb “And the priest.” The Hebrew conjunction ו (vav, “and”) can be considered to have resultative force here.
[15:15] 187 tn Heb “from”; see the note on 4:26.
[15:16] 188 tn Heb “And a man when a lying of seed goes out from him”; KJV, ASV “any man’s seed of copulation”; NIV, NRSV, TEV, NLT “an emission of semen.”
[15:16] 189 tn Heb “and he shall bathe all his flesh in water.”
[15:18] 190 tn Heb “And a woman who a man lies with her a lying of seed.”
[15:19] 191 tn See the note on Lev 15:2 above.
[15:19] 192 tn Heb “blood shall be her discharge in her flesh.” The term “flesh” here refers euphemistically to the female sexual area (cf. the note on v. 2 above).
[15:19] 193 tn See the note on Lev 12:2 and R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:925-27.
[15:23] 194 tn Heb “and if on the bed it (הוּא, hu’) is or on the vessel which she sits on it, when he touches it….” The translation and meaning of this verse is a subject of much debate in the commentaries (see the summary in J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:938-40). It is difficult to determine what הוּא refers to, whether it means “he” referring to the one who does the touching, “it” for the furniture or the seat in v. 22, “she” referring to the woman herself (see Smr היא rather than הוא), or perhaps anything that was lying on the furniture or the bed of vv. 21-22. The latter view is taken here (cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 202).
[15:23] 195 tn The MT accent suggest that “when he touches it” goes with the preceding line, but it seems to be better to take it as an introduction to what follows (see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 202).
[15:24] 196 tn Heb “and if a man indeed lies with her and her menstrual impurity is on him.”
[15:25] 197 tn Heb “And a woman when the flow of her blood flows.”
[15:25] 198 tn Heb “in not the time of her menstruation or when it flows on her menstruation.”
[15:27] 199 tn See the note on v. 5 above.
[15:28] 200 tn Heb “And if…” Although this clause is parallel to v. 13 above, it begins with וְאִם (vÿ’im, “and if”) here rather than וְכִי (vÿkhi, “and when/if”) there.
[15:29] 201 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).
[15:30] 202 tn Heb “And the priest shall make the one a sin offering and the one a burnt offering.”
[15:30] 203 tn Heb “And the priest.” The Hebrew conjunction ו (vav, “and”) can be considered to have resultative force here.
[15:31] 204 tn Heb “And you shall.” The Hebrew conjunction ו (vav, “and”) can be considered to have resultative force here (cf. KJV, ASV, NASB, NCV, NRSV).
[15:31] 205 tn Heb “and they.” Here the Hebrew conjunction ו (vav, “and”) indicates a negative purpose (“lest,” so NAB, NASB).
[15:32] 206 tn Heb “and who a lying of seed goes out from him.”
[15:32] 207 tn Heb “to become unclean in it.”
[15:33] 208 tn Heb “and the one with a discharge, his discharge to the male and the female.”
[15:33] 209 tn Heb “and for a man.”
[22:4] 210 tn Heb “Man man.” The reduplication is a way of saying “any man” (cf. Lev 15:2; 17:3, etc.), but with a negative command it means “No man” (see B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 147).
[22:4] 211 sn The diseases and discharges mentioned here are those described in Lev 13-15.
[22:4] 212 tn Heb “And the one.”
[22:4] 213 tn Heb “in all unclean of a person/soul”; for the Hebrew term נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) meaning “a [dead] person,” see the note on Lev 19:28.
[22:4] 214 tn Heb “or a man who goes out from him a lying of seed.”
