Discovery BoxLeviticus 13:3 
Context13:3 The priest must then examine the infection 1 on the skin of the body, and if the hair 2 in the infection has turned white and the infection appears to be deeper than the skin of the body, 3 then it is a diseased infection, 4 so when the priest examines it 5 he must pronounce the person unclean. 6
Leviticus 13:20
Context13:20 The priest will then examine it, 7 and if 8 it appears to be deeper than the skin 9 and its hair has turned white, then the priest is to pronounce the person unclean. 10 It is a diseased infection that has broken out in the boil. 11
Leviticus 13:25
Context13:25 the priest must examine it, 12 and if 13 the hair has turned white in the bright spot and it appears to be deeper than the skin, 14 it is a disease that has broken out in the burn. 15 The priest is to pronounce the person unclean. 16 It is a diseased infection. 17
Leviticus 13:30
Context13:30 the priest is to examine the infection, 18 and if 19 it appears to be deeper than the skin 20 and the hair in it is reddish yellow and thin, then the priest is to pronounce the person unclean. 21 It is scall, 22 a disease of the head or the beard. 23
Leviticus 13:51
Context13:51 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 24 – the infection is a malignant disease. It is unclean.
Leviticus 13:55
Context13:55 The priest must then examine it after the infection has been washed out, and if 25 the infection has not changed its appearance 26 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. 27
Leviticus 15:3
Context15:3 Now this is his uncleanness in regard to his discharge 28 – 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, 29 this is his uncleanness. 30
Leviticus 15:25
Context15:25 “‘When a woman’s discharge of blood flows 31 many days not at the time of her menstruation, or if it flows beyond the time of her menstruation, 32 all the days of her discharge of impurity will be like the days of her menstruation – she is unclean.
Leviticus 17:15
Context17:15 “‘Any person 33 who eats an animal that has died of natural causes 34 or an animal torn by beasts, whether a native citizen or a foreigner, 35 must wash his clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening; then he becomes clean.
Leviticus 22:4
Context22:4 No man 36 from the descendants of Aaron who is diseased or has a discharge 37 may eat the holy offerings until he becomes clean. The one 38 who touches anything made unclean by contact with a dead person, 39 or a man who has a seminal emission, 40
1 tn Heb “and the priest shall see the infection.”
2 tn There is no “if” expressed, but the contrast between the priestly finding in this verse and the next verse clearly implies it.
3 tn Heb “and the appearance of the infection is deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, “deeper than”) the skin of the his flesh.” See the note on v. 20 below.
4 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.”
5 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).
6 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).
7 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).
8 tn Heb “and behold.”
9 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.
10 tn The declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’, cf. the note on v. 3 above).
11 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.
12 tn Heb “and the priest shall see it.”
13 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
14 tn Heb “and its appearance is deep ‘from’ [comparative מִן (min) meaning ‘deeper than’] the skin.”
15 tn Heb “it is a disease. In the burn it has broken out.”
16 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’; cf. the note on v. 3 above).
17 tn For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above.
18 tn Heb “and the priest shall see the infection.”
19 tn Heb “and behold.”
20 tn Heb “its appearance is deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, “deeper than”) the skin.”
21 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’; cf. the note on v. 3 above).
22 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.
23 tn Heb “It is scall. It is the disease of the head or the beard.”
24 tn Heb “to all which the leather was made into a handiwork.”
25 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
26 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.
27 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.
28 tn The LXX has “this the law of his uncleanness…” (cf. v. 32 and compare, e.g., 13:59; 14:2, 56).
29 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).
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.
30 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).
31 tn Heb “And a woman when the flow of her blood flows.”
32 tn Heb “in not the time of her menstruation or when it flows on her menstruation.”
33 tn Heb “And any soul” (נֶפֶשׁ, nefesh).
34 tn Heb “carcass,” referring to the carcass of an animal that has died on its own, not the carcass of an animal slaughtered for sacrifice or killed by wild beasts. This has been clarified in the translation by supplying the phrase “of natural causes”; cf. NAB “that died of itself”; TEV “that has died a natural death.”
35 tn Heb “in the native or in the sojourner.”
36 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).
37 sn The diseases and discharges mentioned here are those described in Lev 13-15.
38 tn Heb “And the one.”
39 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.
40 tn Heb “or a man who goes out from him a lying of seed.”
