Discovery BoxLeviticus 13:8 
Context13:8 The priest must then examine it, 1 and if 2 the scab has spread on the skin, then the priest is to pronounce the person unclean. 3 It is a disease.
Leviticus 13:17
Context13:17 The priest will then examine it, 4 and if 5 the infection has turned white, the priest is to pronounce the person with the infection clean 6 – he is clean.
Leviticus 13:23
Context13:23 But if the bright spot stays in its place and has not spread, 7 it is the scar of the boil, so the priest is to pronounce him clean. 8
Leviticus 13:44
Context13:44 he is a diseased man. He is unclean. The priest must surely pronounce him unclean because of his infection on his head. 9
Leviticus 14:7
Context14:7 and sprinkle it seven times on the one being cleansed 10 from the disease, pronounce him clean, 11 and send the live bird away over the open countryside. 12
1 tn The “it” is not expressed but is to be understood. It refers to the “infection” (cf. the note on v. 2 above).
2 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).
3 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’, cf. the note on v. 3 above).
4 tn Heb “and the priest shall see it.”
5 tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).
6 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).
7 tn Heb “and if under it the bright spot stands, it has not spread.”
8 tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher, cf. the note on v. 6 above).
9 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.
10 tn Heb “the one cleansing himself” (i.e., Hitpael participle of טָהֵר [taher, “to be clean”]).
11 tn Heb “and he shall make him clean.” The verb is the Piel of טָהֵר (taher, “to be clean”), here used as a so-called “declarative” Piel (i.e., “to declare clean”; cf. 13:6, etc.).
12 sn The reddish color of cedar wood and the crimson colored fabric called for in v. 4 (see the note there, esp. the association with the color of blood) as well as the priestly commands to bring “two live” birds (v. 4a), to slaughter one of them “over fresh water” (literally “living water,” v. 5b), and the subsequent ritual with the (second) “live” bird (vv. 6-7) combine to communicate the concept of “life” and “being alive” in this passage. This contrasts with the fear of death associated with the serious skin diseases in view here (see, e.g., Aaron’s description of Miriam’s skin disease in Num 12:12, “Do not let her be like the dead one when it goes out from its mother’s womb and its flesh half eaten away”). Since the slaughtered bird here is not sacrificed at the altar and is not designated as an expiatory “sin offering,” this ritual procedure probably symbolizes the renewed life of the diseased person and displays it publicly for all to see. It is preparatory to the expiatory rituals that will follow (vv. 10-20, esp. vv. 18-20), but is not itself expiatory. Thus, although there are important similarities between the bird ritual here, the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:20-22), and the red heifer for cleansing from corpse contamination (Num 19), this bird ritual is different in that the latter two constitute “sin offerings” (Lev 16:5, 8-10; Num 19:9, 17). Neither of the birds in Lev 14:4-7 is designated or treated as a “sin offering.” Nevertheless, the very nature of the live bird ritual itself and its obvious similarity to the scapegoat ritual suggests that the patient’s disease has been removed far away so that he or she is free from its effects both personally and communally.
