Leviticus 11–13

Footnotes

1. 1 Heb “the animal,” but as a collective plural, and so throughout this chapter.
2. 2 Heb “every divider of hoof and cleaver of the cleft of hooves”; , “parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted.”
3. 3 Heb “bringer up of the cud” (a few of the ancient versions include the conjunction “and,” but it does not appear in the ). 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. 4 Heb “this,” but as a collective plural (see the following context).
5. 5 Regarding “clean” versus “unclean,” see the note on .
6. 6 Heb “because a chewer of the cud it is” (see also vv. 5 and 6).
7. 7 Heb “and hoof there is not dividing” (see also vv. 5 and 6).
8. 8 A small animal generally understood to be Hyrax syriacus; , , “coney”; “rock hyrax.”
9. 9 See the note on .
10. 10 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. 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 [], 1:, ) or “to chew” (i.e., from the Hebrew Niphal [or Qal B] of גָרָר used in a reciprocal sense; so J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [], , and compare 176 גָרַר, “to chew,” with גרר qal.B, “to ruminate”).
11. 11 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. 12 Heb “all which have fin and scale” (see also vv. 10 and 12).
13. 13 Heb “in the water, in the seas and in the streams” (see also vv. 10 and 12).
14. 14 For zoological remarks on the following list of birds see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (), 1:; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (), .
15. 15 Heb “and the buzzard to its kind” (see also vv. 16 and 19 for the same expression “of any kind”).
16. 16 Heb “every crow to its kind.” Many English versions (e.g., , , , , ) render this as “raven.”
17. 17 Literally, “the daughter of the wasteland.” Various proposals for the species of bird referred to here include “owl” (), “horned owl” (, ), and “ostrich” (, , , , ).
18. 18 Heb “the one walking on four” (cf. vv. 21–23 and 27–28).
19. 19 Heb “which to it are lower legs from above to its feet” (reading the Qere “to it” rather than the Kethib “not”).
20. 20 For entomological remarks on the following list of insects see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (), 1:; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (), .
21. 21 Heb “and to these.”
22. 22 Heb “to all” (cf. the note on v. ). This and the following verses develop more fully the categories of uncleanness set forth in principle in vv. 24–25.
23. 23 Heb “divides hoof and cleft it does not cleave”; “divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted”; “divided but unsplit hooves.”
24. 24 See the note on .
25. 25 Compare the regulations in Lev 11:2–8.
26. 26 Heb “the one walking on four.” Compare Lev 11:20–23.
27. 27 For zoological analyses of the list of creatures in vv. 29–30, see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (), 1:; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (), .
28. 28 Heb “And all which it shall fall on it from them.”
29. 29 Heb “in water it shall be brought.”
30. 30 Heb “And any earthenware vessel which shall fall from them into its midst.”
31. 31 Heb “all which is in its midst.”
32. 32 Heb “which water comes on it.”
33. 33 Heb “any drink which may be drunk”; “any liquid which may be drunk”; “any beverage that is in such an unclean container.”
34. 34 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).
35. 35 Heb “be unclean.”
36. 36 Heb “a spring and a cistern collection of water”; , “for collecting water.”
37. 37 Heb “And if there falls from their carcass on any seed of sowing which shall be sown.”
38. 38 This word for “animal” refers to land animal quadrupeds, not just any beast that dwells on the land (cf. 11:2).
39. 39 Heb “which is food for you” or “which is for you to eat.”
40. 40 Heb “goes” (, “goeth”); “moves about”; “slither along.” The same Hebrew term is translated “walks” in the following clause.
41. 41 Heb “until all multiplying of legs.”
42. 42 Heb “by any of the swarming things that swarm.”
43. 43 Heb “to be to you for a God.”
44. 44 The Hebrew term translated “law” (תוֹרָה, 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.
45. 45 Heb “for all the creatures.”
46. 1 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, 4:144; cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [], ; and J. Milgrom, Leviticus [], 1:). and have Niphal “be impregnated” (see, e.g., Num 5:28); note “If a woman have conceived seed” (cf. , , ; also , “becomes pregnant”).
47. 2 The regulations for the “male child” in vv. 2–4 contrast with those for the “female child” in v. 5 (see the there).
48. 3 Heb “as the days of the menstrual flow [] of her menstruating [q. inf.] she shall be unclean” (R. E. Averbeck, 1:; the verb appears only in this verse in the OT). Cf. “as in the days of her menstruation”; “during her menstrual period”; “during her monthly period.” See Lev 15:19–24 for the standard purity regulations for a woman’s menstrual period.
49. 4 Heb “and in.…”
50. 5 This rendering, “the flesh of his foreskin,” is literal. Based on , 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 [], 1:). A number of English versions omit this reference to the foreskin and mention only circumcision, presumably for euphemistic reasons (cf. , , , , ).
51. 6 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).
52. 7 Heb “in bloods of purification” or “purifying” or “purity”; “in the blood of her purification”; “her time of blood purification.” See the following note.
53. 8 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 [], ; cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus [], 1:). 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.
54. 9 Heb “on purity blood.” The preposition here is עַל (’al) rather than בְּ (bé, as it is in the middle of v. 4), but no doubt the same meaning is intended.
55. 10 For clarification of the translation here, see the notes on vv. above. The doubling of the time after the birth of a female child is puzzling (see the remarks in J. Milgrom, Leviticus [], 1:; and G. J. Wenham, Leviticus [], ). 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 ). 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, 2:. 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 [], ).
56. 11 Heb “And when” (so , ). Many recent English versions leave the conjunction untranslated.
57. 12 Heb “a lamb the son of his year”; “a lamb of the first year” ( “in its first year”); “a yearling lamb.”
58. 13 See the note on regarding the “burnt offering.”
59. 14 See the note on regarding the term “sin offering.”
60. 15 Heb “and he” (i.e., the priest mentioned at the end of v. 6). The referent has been specified in the translation for clarity.
61. 16 See the note on “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”).
62. 17 Or “she will be[come] pure.”
63. 18 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 [], 1:). Cf. “from the fountain of her blood.”
64. 19 Heb “If her hand cannot find the sufficiency of a sheep.” Many English versions render this as “lamb.”
65. 20 Heb “from the sons of the pigeon,” referring either to “young pigeons” or “various species of pigeon” (contrast J. Milgrom, Leviticus [], 1:, with J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [], ; cf. Lev 1:14 and esp. 5:7–10).
66. 21 Or “she will be[come] pure.”
67. 1 Heb “A man, if [or when] he has.…” The term for “a man, human being” (אָדָם, ’adam; see the note on ) in this case refers to any person among “mankind,” male or female, since either could be afflicted with infections on the skin.
68. 2 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 (sé’et) as “swelling,” which has been retained here (see the explanation in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [], ). 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 [], 1:), 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 [], ). Thus, one could translate here, for example, “discoloration” (so Milgrom and II שְׂאֵת “spot, blemish on the skin” in 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 (), , . “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. below), so it is retained in the present translation.
69. 3 The etymology and meaning of this term is unknown. It could mean “scab” (, , ) or possibly “rash” (, ), “flaking skin,” or an “eruption” () of some sort.
70. 4 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.”
71. 5 Heb “in the skin of his flesh” as opposed to the head or the beard (v. 29).
72. 6 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” ( 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 [], 1:, ; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [], ; 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”).
73. 7 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 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.
74. 8 Heb “and the priest shall see the infection.”
75. 9 There is no “if” expressed, but the contrast between the priestly finding in this verse and the next verse clearly implies it.
76. 10 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. below.
77. 11 For the translation “diseased infection” see the note on v. above. Cf. “a dreaded skin disease”; “an infectious skin disease”; “a contagious skin disease.”
78. 12 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).
79. 13 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 [], ; cf. the corresponding opposite in v. 6 below).
80. 14 Heb “and if.”
81. 15 Heb “and deep is not its appearance from the skin”; cf. “does not seem to have penetrated below the skin.”
82. 16 Heb “and the priest will shut up the infection seven days.”
83. 17 Heb “and behold” (so , ).
84. 18 Heb “the infection has stood in his eyes”; “if in his eyes the plague be at a stay.”
85. 19 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.
86. 20 Heb “a second seven days.”
87. 21 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.
88. 22 Heb “and behold.”
89. 23 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 [], ; cf. the corresponding opposite in v. 3 above).
90. 24 On the term “scab” see the note on v. above. Cf. “it was merely eczema”; “only an eruption”; “only a temporary rash.”
91. 25 Heb “and he shall wash his clothes.”
92. 26 Heb “And if spreading [infinitive absolute] it spreads [finite verb].” For the infinitive absolute used to highlight contrast rather than emphasis see §113.p.
93. 27 The “it” is not expressed but is to be understood. It refers to the “infection” (cf. the note on v. above).
94. 28 Heb “and behold” (so , ).
95. 29 This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’, cf. the note on v. above).
96. 30 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 and cf. v. 2 above) refers to any person among “mankind,” male or female. For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. above.
97. 31 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. above).
98. 32 Heb “and behold” (so , ).
99. 33 Heb “and rawness [i.e., something living] of living flesh is in the swelling”; , , “quick raw flesh.”
100. 34 The term rendered here “chronic” is a Niphal participle meaning “grown old” ( II ישׁן nif.2). The idea is that this is an old enduring skin disease that keeps on developing or recurring.
101. 35 Heb “in the skin of his flesh” as opposed to the head or the beard (v. 29; cf. v. 2 above).
102. 36 This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’, cf. the note on v. above).
103. 37 Heb “he”; the referent (the priest) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
104. 38 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 [], ).
105. 39 Heb “And if spreading [infinitive absolute] it spreads out [finite verb].” For the infinitive absolute used to highlight contrast rather than emphasis see §113.p.
106. 40 Heb “all the skin of the infection,” but see v. 4 above.
107. 41 Heb “to all the appearance of the eyes of the priest.”
108. 42 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. above).
109. 43 Heb “and behold” (so , , ).
110. 44 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. above).
111. 45 Heb “all of him has turned white, and he is clean.”
112. 46 Heb “and in the day of there appears in it living flesh.” Some English versions render this as “open sores” (cf. , , ).