Leviticus 12:1--13:59

¹ 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”).

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).

³ 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.

⁴ tn Heb “and in….”

⁵ 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).

⁶ 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).

⁷ 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.

⁸ 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.

⁹ 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.

¹⁰ 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).

¹¹ tn Heb “And when” (so KJV, NASB). Many recent English versions leave the conjunction untranslated.

¹² 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.”

¹³ sn See the note on Lev 1:3 regarding the “burnt offering.”

¹⁴ sn See the note on Lev 4:3 regarding the term “sin offering.”

¹⁵ 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.

¹⁶ 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”).

¹⁷ tn Or “she will be[come] pure.”

¹⁸ 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.”

¹⁹ tn Heb “If her hand cannot find the sufficiency of a sheep.” Many English versions render this as “lamb.”

²⁰ 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).

²¹ tn Or “she will be[come] pure.”

²² 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.

²³ 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.

²⁴ 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.

²⁵ 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.”

²⁶ tn Heb “in the skin of his flesh” as opposed to the head or the beard (v. 29).

²⁷ 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”).

²⁸ 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.

²⁹ tn Heb “and the priest shall see the infection.”

³⁰ tn There is no “if” expressed, but the contrast between the priestly finding in this verse and the next verse clearly implies it.

³¹ 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.

³² 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.”

³³ 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).

³⁴ 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).

³⁵ tn Heb “and if.”

³⁶ tn Heb “and deep is not its appearance from the skin”; cf. NAB “does not seem to have penetrated below the skin.”

³⁷ tn Heb “and the priest will shut up the infection seven days.”

³⁸ tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).

³⁹ tn Heb “the infection has stood in his eyes”; ASV “if in his eyes the plague be at a stay.”

⁴⁰ 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.

⁴¹ tn Heb “a second seven days.”

⁴² 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.

⁴³ tn Heb “and behold.”

⁴⁴ 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).

⁴⁵ 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.”

⁴⁶ tn Heb “and he shall wash his clothes.”

⁴⁷ 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.

⁴⁸ tn The “it” is not expressed but is to be understood. It refers to the “infection” (cf. the note on v. 2 above).

⁴⁹ tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).

⁵⁰ tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’, cf. the note on v. 3 above).

⁵¹ 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.

⁵² 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).

⁵³ tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).

⁵⁴ tn Heb “and rawness [i.e., something living] of living flesh is in the swelling”; KJV, NASB, NRSV “quick raw flesh.”

⁵⁵ 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.

⁵⁶ tn Heb “in the skin of his flesh” as opposed to the head or the beard (v. 29; cf. v. 2 above).

⁵⁷ tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’, cf. the note on v. 3 above).

⁵⁸ tn Heb “he”; the referent (the priest) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁵⁹ 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).

⁶⁰ 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.

⁶¹ tn Heb “all the skin of the infection,” but see v. 4 above.

⁶² tn Heb “to all the appearance of the eyes of the priest.”

⁶³ 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).

⁶⁴ tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).

⁶⁵ 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).

⁶⁶ tn Heb “all of him has turned white, and he is clean.”

⁶⁷ 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).

⁶⁸ tn Heb “and the priest shall see the living flesh.”

⁶⁹ tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’; cf. the note on v. 3 above).

⁷⁰ tn Heb “Or if/when.”

⁷¹ 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).

⁷² tn Heb “and the priest shall see it.”

⁷³ tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).

⁷⁴ 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).

⁷⁵ 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, vÿ’oro).

⁷⁶ 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.

⁷⁷ 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).

⁷⁸ tn Heb “and behold.”

⁷⁹ 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.

⁸⁰ tn The declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’, cf. the note on v. 3 above).

⁸¹ 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.

⁸² tn Heb “and if.”

⁸³ tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).

⁸⁴ tn Heb “and the priest will shut him up seven days.”

⁸⁵ tn Heb “and if.”

⁸⁶ tn Heb “is indeed spreading.”

⁸⁷ tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’, cf. the note on v. 3 above).

⁸⁸ tn Heb “and if under it the bright spot stands, it has not spread.”

⁸⁹ tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher, cf. the note on v. 6 above).

⁹⁰ tn Heb “Or a body, if there is in its skin a burn of fire.”

⁹¹ tn Heb “and the priest shall see it.”

⁹² tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).

⁹³ tn Heb “and its appearance is deep ‘from’ [comparative מִן (min) meaning ‘deeper than’] the skin.”

⁹⁴ tn Heb “it is a disease. In the burn it has broken out.”

⁹⁵ tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’; cf. the note on v. 3 above).

⁹⁶ tn For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above.

⁹⁷ tn Heb “and if.”

⁹⁸ tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “and indeed.”

⁹⁹ 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.”

¹⁰⁰ tn Heb “and the priest will shut him up seven days.”

¹⁰¹ tn Heb “is indeed spreading.”

¹⁰² tn For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above.

¹⁰³ tn Heb “and if under it the bright spot stands, it has not spread in the skin.”

¹⁰⁴ tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher; cf. the note on v. 6 above).

¹⁰⁵ 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.

¹⁰⁶ tn Heb “and the priest shall see the infection.”

¹⁰⁷ tn Heb “and behold.”

¹⁰⁸ tn Heb “its appearance is deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, “deeper than”) the skin.”

¹⁰⁹ tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’; cf. the note on v. 3 above).

¹¹⁰ 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.

¹¹¹ tn Heb “It is scall. It is the disease of the head or the beard.”

¹¹² tn Heb “and behold there is not its appearance deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, meaning “deeper than”) the skin.”

¹¹³ tn Heb “and the priest will shut up the infection of the scall seven days.”

¹¹⁴ tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).

¹¹⁵ tn Heb “and the appearance of the scall is not deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, meaning “deeper than”) the skin.”

¹¹⁶ 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).

¹¹⁷ tn Heb “but the scall shall he not shave” (so KJV, ASV); NIV “except for the diseased area.”

¹¹⁸ tn Heb “and the priest will shut up the scall a second seven days.”

¹¹⁹ tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).

¹²⁰ tn Heb “and its appearance is not deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, meaning “deeper than”) the skin.”

¹²¹ tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher, cf. the note on v. 6 above).

¹²² 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.

¹²³ tn Heb “and behold.”

¹²⁴ tn Heb “the priest shall not search to the reddish yellow hair.”

¹²⁵ tn Heb “he”; the referent (the affected person) is specified in the translation for clarity (likewise in the following verse).

¹²⁶ tn Heb “and if in his eyes the infection has stood.”

¹²⁷ tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher, cf. the note on v. 6 above).

¹²⁸ tn Heb “and the priest shall see.”

¹²⁹ tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).

¹³⁰ 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.

¹³¹ 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.

¹³² tn Heb “And if from the front edge of his face, his head is rubbed bare.” See the note on v. 40 above.

¹³³ tn The rendering “balding in front” corresponds to the location of the bareness at the beginning of the verse.

¹³⁴ 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).

¹³⁵ tn Heb “and behold.”

¹³⁶ tn Heb “like appearance of disease of skin of flesh.”

¹³⁷ 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.

¹³⁸ tn Heb “And the diseased one who in him is the infection.”

¹³⁹ 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).

¹⁴⁰ tn Heb “All the days which the infection is in him.”

¹⁴¹ tn Heb “And the garment, if there is in it a mark of disease.”

¹⁴² tn Heb “in a wool garment or in a linen garment.”

¹⁴³ 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.

¹⁴⁴ tn Heb “in any handiwork of skin” (cf. KJV, ASV, NRSV); most other modern English versions have “leather.”

¹⁴⁵ tn Heb “and the infection is.” This clause is conditional in force, and is translated as such by almost all English versions.

¹⁴⁶ tn Heb “And the priest shall see the infection and he shall shut up the infection seven days.”

¹⁴⁷ tn Heb “to all which the leather was made into a handiwork.”

¹⁴⁸ tn Heb “And if the priest sees and behold”; NASB “and indeed.”

¹⁴⁹ tn Heb “a second seven days.”

¹⁵⁰ tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).

¹⁵¹ 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.

¹⁵² 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.

¹⁵³ tn Heb “And if the priest saw and behold….”

¹⁵⁴ tn Heb “and he shall tear it from.”

¹⁵⁵ tn Heb “And if”; NIV, NCV “But if”; NAB “If, however.”

¹⁵⁶ tn Heb “and the infection turns aside from them.”

¹⁵⁷ 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.

¹⁵⁸ tn These are declarative Piel forms of the verbs טָהֵר (taher) and טָמֵא (tame’) respectively (cf. the notes on vv. 3 and 6 above).