CHAPTER 9
\nTHE FIRST CELEBRATION OF SACRIFICE (vv. 1\u201324)
\nShemini
\nChapter 9 describes what occurred after the seven days of ordination. At that time, on the eighth day, the Tabernacle altar was used for the first time in the performance of sacrificial worship on behalf of the people of Israel. As in chapter 8, this chapter too is introduced (vv. 1\u20137) by instructions regarding the rites to be described subsequently. All the necessary materials are assembled and the congregation gathers in the outer section of the Tabernacle courtyard.
\n1. On the eighth day Moses called Aaron \u2026 and the elders of Israel The \u201celders\u201d (zekenim) represented the people. Their functions and status are discussed in the Comment to 4:15.
\n2. He said to Aaron: \u201cTake a calf of the herd\u201d In the Comments to 8:14\u201318 the combination of sin offering and burnt offering is explained. The difference is that here the entire people is involved, not only the priesthood, as in chapter 8. A sequence of sin offering and burnt offering was ordained both for the priesthood and for the people.
\n4. For today the Lord will appear to you This is the main purpose of the celebrations, as we read explicitly in verse 6.
\n5. that Moses had commanded Moses had an enhanced role in this celebration as the transmitter of God\u2019s commands. In Leviticus, it is usually God who commands, not Moses.
\n7. Then Moses said to Aaron: \u201cCome forward to the altar\u201d At this point, Moses turned over the conduct of the ritual to Aaron by inviting him to officiate at the altar for the first time.
\nmaking expiation for yourself and for the people This formulation is suggestive of what we find in 16:15\u201317 regarding the role of the High Priest on Yom Kippur. The sin offering of the priesthood indirectly served the people as well, but an additional sin offering on their behalf was required nevertheless.
\n9. Aaron\u2019s sons brought the blood to him This is a detail of procedure missing elsewhere. In 8:14, 22 it is merely stated that the officiating priests \u201ctook\u201d the blood. Practically speaking, it was necessary for another priest to assist the officiant; in Mishnah Yoma 4:3, 5:3, it is explained that a second priest held the sacrificial blood in a bowl and, later on in the ritual, handed it back to the officiant.
\n12. Aaron\u2019s sons passed the blood to him The rare form va-yamtsi\u02beu, \u201cthey handed over, passed on,\u201d is unique to this chapter in all of Leviticus. In verse 9 the verb used is va-yakrivu, \u201cthey brought.\u201d
\n16. according to regulation On the meaning of Hebrew ka-mishpat, \u201caccording to regulation,\u201d see Comment to 5:10.
\n17. He then brought forward the meal offering and, taking a handful of it The Comment to 2:1 explains that Hebrew min\u1e25ah is better rendered \u201cgrain offering.\u201d A literal rendering of vayemalle\u02be kappo mi-mennah would read \u201cHe filled his palm with it,\u201d namely, with a fistful of the dough. Usually this act is described as \u201cscooping a fistful,\u201d as in 2:2 and in 6:8, but the procedure is the same.
\nhe turned it into smoke on the altar\u2014in addition to the burnt offering of the morning The formula \u02bfolat ha-boker, \u201cthe burnt offering of the morning,\u201d occurs several times in the Bible. It occurs in 2 Kings 16:15 as well as in Numbers 28:23 and Ezekiel 46:15. In all instances, \u02bfolat ha-boker refers to the daily burnt offering of the morning. Here such a sense would be problematic because the daily cult was not in force before the rites of investiture and dedication had been performed. Reference to \u201cthe burnt offering of the morning\u201d would be anticipatory.
\nThis difficulty is addressed in the Sifra, which identifies \u201cthe burnt offering of the morning\u201d with the sacrifice just offered by the people on this very occasion, as described in verses 12\u201316. The grain offering specified here would have been made in addition to the special burnt offering, conforming to the common pattern whereby grain offerings accompany burnt offerings. The regimen here would then resemble the rites described in Exodus 40:29f., where both a burnt offering and a grain offering were performed at the dedication of the Tabernacle altar.
\nNevertheless, it would be questionable to adopt a meaning for \u02bfolat ha-boker in this instance that differs from its meaning everywhere else. Critical scholarship raises the possibility that a later editor added this wording on the suggestion of Numbers 28\u201329, or perhaps of Exodus 29:38\u201346, where the daily burnt offerings are specifically ordained. Certainly, the wording here is strange, and traditional attempts to explain its occurrence are less than satisfactory.
\n18. He slaughtered the ox and the ram, the people\u2019s sacrifice of well-being Rather, \u201cthe people\u2019s sacred gifts of greeting.\u201d The extent of the sacrifice was greater than usual on this occasion, including both an ox and a ram. The procedures correspond to the provisions of chapter 3 and of 7:11f.
\n22. Aaron lifted his bands toward the people and blessed them According to the Sifra, followed by Rashi and some other commentators, the priestly blessing preserved in Numbers 6:22\u201327 was pronounced on this occasion: \u201cThe Lord bless you and keep you.\u2026\u201d Raising the hands was a characteristic gesture of prayer, directed toward God, whereas here Aaron faced the people and raised his hands over them as he blessed them. This represents a variation on the usual significance of the act. In rabbinic Hebrew, this act is called nesi\u02beat kappayim, \u201cthe raising of the palms.\u201d
\nand he stepped down The sequence here is unclear. Aaron should first have stepped down and then blessed the people. Sensing this problem, Ibn Ezra took the verb va-yered as a pluperfect:\u201chaving stepped down,\u201d he blessed the people.
\n23. Moses and Aaron then went inside the Tent of Meeting It is unclear why Moses and Aaron entered the Tent at this time. The Sifra assumes that it was in order to pray for the anticipated appearance of God\u2019s presence (kavod). Ibn Ezra states that it was in order to pray for the miraculous ignition of the altar fire. The two views are not inconsistent. When God\u2019s presence appeared, a flame came forth from inside the Tent and ignited the altar fire, as we read in the following verse.
\n24. Fire came forth from before the Lord The Sifra interprets this as a fire from heaven. Rashbam more accurately identifies it as the fire of God that was inside the Tent, the same fire that would subsequently scald Nadab and Abihu, Aaron\u2019s two sons, when they entered the Tent improperly, according to 10:2. In both verses we have the same formulation: va-tetse\u02be \u02beesh mi-lifnei YHVH, \u201cFire came forth from before the Lord.\u201d God\u2019s fire issued from the kavod, which itself was a fire that was enveloped in a thick cloud and pervaded the Tent. It was a blessing to those who pleased God but destructive to those who angered Him. On this occasion the ignition of the altar fire was cause for rejoicing.
\nCHAPTER 10
\nAdmonitions on Priestly Conduct
\nChapter 10, following the ordination of Aaron and his sons and the appearance of God\u2019s presence (kavod) at the newly consecrated Tabernacle, sets forth various regulations regarding appropriate priestly conduct. To emphasize the necessity of precise compliance with all the ritual laws, this chapter preserves a brief narrative of the untimely death of two of Aaron\u2019s sons, Nadab and Abihu; having made an improper incense offering, they were struck down by God\u2019s fire.
\nLike the story of Korah in Numbers 16\u201317, the story about Nadab and Abihu served as an admonition and as an object lesson. The tragedy of their punishment is echoed in several other Torah passages.
\nThe chapter may be divided into four discernible sections: (1) the death of Nadab and Abihu and its aftermath (vv. 1\u20137); (2) the regulations prohibiting priests from imbibing intoxicants prior to officiating in the cult (vv. 8\u201311); (3) a restatement of the requirement that priests eat their allotted portions from the sacrifices within specified areas (vv. 12\u201315); (4) Moses\u2019 instructions to Aaron and his remaining sons regarding the disposition of the sin offering that had been brought by the people as part of the dedication of the Tabernacle (vv. 16\u201320). Reference is to the sacrifice mentioned in 9:3 and described in 9:15\u201321.
\nChapter 10 seems to bring to a conclusion the account of the traditions regarding the initiation and consecration of the Israelite priesthood that was treated in chapters 8\u201310.
\nTHE DEATH OF NADAB AND ABIHU: A DRAMATIC PRECEDENT (vv. 1\u20137)
\n1. each took his fire pan, put fire in it Rather, \u201cand put coals in it.\u201d Hebrew \u02beesh, \u201cfire,\u201d in fact refers to the embers placed on the fire pans (ma\u1e25tot). In Numbers 17:2, \u02beesh is correctly translated \u201ccoals\u201d and should be so rendered here as well.
\nalien fire, which He had not enjoined upon them Hebrew \u02beesh zarah, \u201calien fire,\u201d refers to the incense itself. It could be translated \u201can alien [incense offering by] fire.\u201d The sense of Hebrew zarah, \u201calien,\u201d is elusive, and the \u201cstrangeness\u201d implied has been variously interpreted. The text does not specify the offense committed by the two young priests; it merely states that they brought an offering that had not been specifically ordained. The Sifra speculates that they brought a voluntary offering in celebration of the Tabernacle dedication. Various suggestions in the midrashim produce a composite of several possible offenses. In Leviticus Rabba we read: \u201cBecause of nearness (kirvah)\u2014for they penetrated into the innermost section [of the sanctuary]. Because of \u2018sacrificing\u2019 (krivah)\u2014for they brought an offering they were not enjoined to bring. Because of \u2018alien fire\u2019\u2014they brought coals inside [the sanctuary] which came from an oven (and not from the sacrificial altar).\u201d
\nThe principle of this last interpretation has been adopted by a modern scholar, M. Haran, who suggests that the offense of the two priests lay in using incense brought from outside the sacred area between the altar and the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. It was therefore impure. For the others, the midrashic interpretations play on the verb k-r-v, \u201cto draw near, approach.\u201d reflected in va-yakrivu, \u201cthey brought near, presented,\u201d in verse 1. The first of these interpretations, that the offense consisted of penetrating too far into the sanctuary, is supported by the reference to this episode in 16:1\u20132. There Aaron is warned not to repeat the offense of his two sons by proceeding beyond the curtain (parokhet) in the sanctuary on any occasion other than Yom Kippur\u2014\u201clest he die.\u201d
\nA possible key to the precise nature of the offense lies in the equivalence of two descriptive terms: \u02beesh zarah in our text and ketoret zarah, \u201can alien incense offering,\u201d in Exodus 30:9. If \u02beesh zarah is equivalent to ketoret zarah we may learn from Exodus 30:9 that it was forbidden to offer on the golden incense altar anything other than the daily incense offering. Aaron\u2019s two sons, then, violated the law of Exodus 30:9: Entering the Tent for an improper purpose, they met with death.
\n2. And fire came forth from the Lord This refers to the fire mentioned in 9:24, which came forth from inside the Tent of Meeting and consumed the sacrifices offered at the dedication of the Tabernacle, as explained by Rashbam. The phraseology here is similar to that of Numbers 16:35, where it is said that God\u2019s fire consumed Korah and his faction as they stood near the Tent of Meeting to offer incense that had been rejected by God. This suggests a similarity of theme, as well.
\nat the instance of the Lord Rather, \u201cbefore the Lord.\u201d This formula identifies the place of death. Verses 4\u20135 state that Aaron\u2019s relatives removed the bodies of Nadab and Abihu \u201caway from the front of the sanctuary,\u201d namely, from the spot where they died. It is logical, therefore, to conclude that verse 2 is also identifying the place of death, rather than informing us who caused their death.
\n3. Through those near to Me I show Myself holy The duly consecrated priests are \u201cnear\u201d to God. Thus, we read in Ezekiel 42:13: \u201cThe northern chambers and the southern chambers \u2026 are the consecrated chambers in which the priests who have access to the Lord (\u02beasher kerovim le-YHVH) shall eat the most holy offerings.\u201d Hebrew karov also serves as an official title, designating the courtier who is permitted to approach the king, as in Esther 1:14 or in Ezekiel 23:12, where governors and provincial rulers are called kerovim, members of the official inner circle. The priests enjoy a comparable position in the sanctuary.
\nPriests who adhere to the regulations of their office and protect the purity of the sanctuary sanctify God; and, in turn, the sanctuary is favored by God\u2019s presence. When, as happened in this case, they flout God\u2019s will, He exercises His punitive power, compelling all to recognize His authority.
\nThe two sides of the coin are expressed quite clearly in other passages of the Torah. In 22:31\u201332 we read: \u201cYou shall faithfully observe My commandments: I am the Lord. You shall not profane My holy name, that I may be sanctified in the midst of the Israelite people.\u2026\u201d In contrast, we read in Numbers 20:12\u201313: \u201cBut the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, \u2018Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm My sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people, therefore you shall not lead this congregation into the land that I have given them.\u2019 Those are the Waters of Meribah\u2014meaning that the Israelites quarrelled with the Lord\u2014through which He affirmed His sanctity.\u201d
\nEither way, God emerges triumphant, for He will not allow His sanctity to be compromised.
\nAnd Aaron was silent Aaron accepted God\u2019s harsh judgment and did not cry out or complain at his painful loss.
\n4. sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron Aaron\u2019s cousins, who were the uncles of Nadab and Abihu, had the task of attending to the bodies of the two dead priests.
\nIn ancient Israel, certain funerary functions may have been the traditional responsibility of one\u2019s close relatives. Amos 6:10 mentions that, in the destruction to come, one\u2019s uncle and his \u201cburner\u201d (mesarefo), who may have been one and the same person, would remove from dwellings ravaged by fire the bones of those caught in the devastation. Thus, it may not have been coincidental that the uncles of Nadab and Abihu undertook to remove their bodies.
\nRamban explains that it was necessary for Aaron\u2019s cousins to remove the bodies of the dead priests in this instance because the two remaining sons of Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar, had just been consecrated as priests and could not defile themselves by contact with corpses. Normally, ordinary priests were permitted contact with corpses of close relatives, but not in this case.
\nfrom the front of the sanctuary The sequence of events is difficult to reconstruct. The two priests had entered the Tent of Meeting. They were probably struck down as they were departing, when they were already in the courtyard outside the Tent.
\nto a place outside the camp The corpses had to be removed from the camp as was required in the case of any impure object. Relatively little is known of ancient Israelite burial customs, except that impurity resulting from contact with corpses was the most severe kind and a major concern in religious law. The dead were buried away from the settled areas.
\n5. by their tunics This significant detail indicates that the bodies of the two priests were not completely consumed by God\u2019s fire. The faces of the priests were probably blasted by the flame, which killed them, but their bodies were not burned fully. The Hebrew verb \u02beakhal usually means \u201cto consume, destroy.\u201d But when it is used to describe the action of fire, it may simply mean \u201cto burn, blaze.\u201d The clothing worn by the priests was intact.
\n6. \u201cdo not bare your heads and do not rend your clothes\u201d The sense of the Hebrew verb para\u02bf is \u201cto dishevel\u201d the hair. Such an act of mourning obviously involved baring the head. The verb param, \u201cto rend,\u201d was interpreted in the Talmud as tearing along the seams of one\u2019s garment.
\nlest you die This refers to death at the hand of God, as a punishment.
\nand anger strike the whole community Ketsef, \u201cwrath,\u201d and the verb katsaf have a particular force in biblical Hebrew, often suggesting a plague sent by God to punish those who have angered Him.
\nAs noted above, the particular circumstances surrounding the death of Nadab and Abihu\u2014occurring at the time of their consecration and purification\u2014prevented, indeed forbade, their father and brothers from mourning for them. Their sanctification took precedence. The rest of the people, however, were to mourn. The Hebrew verb b-kh-h, \u201cto weep,\u201d means \u201cto mourn\u201d in the context of bereavement. The period of mourning was customarily seven days.
\n7. And so do not go outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting Here, as in other references to peta\u1e25 \u02beohel mo\u02bfed, \u201cthe entrance of the Tent of Meeting,\u201d the Tent designates a large area, which included the inner section of the courtyard. It is not that the priests were restricted to the inside of the Tent throughout the period of mourning; they were merely forbidden to leave the sacred precinct of the inner court.
\nfor the Lord\u2019s anointing oil is upon you The precise intent of this verse is not clear. According to 8:10\u201312 only Aaron was anointed with the special oil. Although he along with his sons had a mixture of the oil and sacrificial blood sprinkled on them (8:30) it is questionable whether that procedure would be referred to as anointment.
\nActually, there are two distinct traditions concerning the anointing of the priesthood. According to chapter 8 and 21:10, the High Priest was distinguished because only he was anointed. But according to 7:35\u201336 and certain other traditions (cf. Exod. 40:15), Aaron\u2019s sons were also anointed. Our passage may reflect this second tradition.
\nRULES FOR THE PRIESTHOOD (vv. 8\u201315)
\n9. Drink no wine or other intoxicant In biblical Hebrew shekhar does not usually mean \u201cbeer,\u201d as does Akkadian shik\u0101ru, for instance. Hebrew shekhar always occurs together with yayin, \u201cwine,\u201d as is the case here. The reference to shekhar in connection with the Nazirite in Numbers 6:3 makes it clear that beer is not intended because the Nazirite is prohibited only from drinking any grape product. Targum Onkelos translates yayin ve-shekhar as Aramaic \u1e25amar u-meravvei, \u201cwine or intoxicant.\u201d
\n10. for you must distinguish Verses 10 and 11 begin with infinitives, literally \u201cto distinguish\u201d and \u201cto teach,\u201d but the force of these infinitives is imperative, as the translation indicates. Intoxicants were forbidden to the priests precisely because imbibing them would impair their faculties and they would not be able to distinguish between the sacred and the profane. This responsibility is emphasized throughout Leviticus and in Ezekiel 44:23 as well. It is likely that, in using this occasion to stress the major roles of the priesthood, the text is linking the restriction on intoxicants to the horrendous deaths of Aaron\u2019s two sons.
\n12. Take the meal offering This refers to the grain offering presented by the people as part of the Tabernacle dedication, as stipulated in 9:4, 17.
\nand eat it unleavened beside the altar This procedure was ordained in 2:3 and in 6:7\u201311. That is the sense of \u201cfor so I have been commanded\u201d at the end of verse 13 and the formula \u201cas the Lord has commanded\u201d in verse 15. In 6:7 we are told that the priests must eat what is left of the grain offerings brought on behalf of Israelites \u201cin front of the altar\u201d (\u02beel penei ha-mizbea\u1e25). The difference in wording is probably insignificant.
\ninasmuch as it is your due On the meaning of the Hebrew term \u1e25ok, see Comment to 6:11.
\n14. But the breast of elevation offering Rather, \u201cof the presentation offering.\u201d The regulations governing the priests\u2019 allocation of portions from certain sacrifices are stipulated in 7:11\u201338, especially in 7:30f. The text of chapter 10 thus acknowledges the earlier ritual legislation in Leviticus as the source for what the Lord commands. It records compliance with what had been ordained.
\nMOSES MONITORS THE PRIESTS AND THE CULT (vv. 16\u201320)
\n16. Then Moses inquired about the goat of sin offering Reference is to the sin offering provided by the people as part of the dedication rites in 9:3, 15. Rabbi Akiba makes this connection in the Sifra: The priests were required to eat certain portions of sin offerings within the sacred precincts, as is stipulated in 6:18, 22.
\nUpon inquiry, Moses learned that on this occasion the priestly portions of the sin offering had been burned on the altar\u2014the priests had not eaten them as they were supposed to. Having disobeyed their instructions, they incurred Moses\u2019 anger. He spoke to Aaron\u2019s sons in deference to Aaron himself.
\n17. For it is most holy, and He has given it to you to remove the guilt of the community On one level, the priestly emoluments represent the compensation due the priests for their services in securing expiation, for officiating in the cult, and so forth. There is, however, another dimension: It was the duty of the priests to cat their assigned portions of the \u1e25atta\u02bet, \u201csin offering,\u201d of the people. This \u1e25atta\u02bet was an indispensable component of the expiatory process. As the Sifra puts it: \u201cThe priests eat (of the \u1e25atta\u02bet) and the donors thereby secure expiation.\u201d Therefore, although the blood rites incorporated in the offering of the \u1e25atta\u02bet constituted the primary means of expiation, the sacred meals of the priests were also essential.
\nHebrew lase\u02bet \u02bfavon is ambiguous because the verb nasa\u02be can mean both \u201cto bear, carry\u201d and also \u201cto remove; carry away,\u201d which is the sense here. The priests effectively removed the sins of the people by attending to the sacrifices of expiation. But they were not to be punished for the sins of the community.
\n18. Since its blood was not brought inside the sanctuary Reference is to the rule of 6:23: \u201cBut no sin offering may be eaten from which any blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting for expiation in the sanctuary; any such shall be consumed in fire.\u201d Since the blood of the dedicatory sin offering had not been brought inside the sanctuary, the proper portions of the sacrifice were to be eaten by the priests. For a discussion of the various types of sin offerings and the disposition of the blood in each case, see introductory Comment to chapters 4\u20135.
\n19. they brought their sin offering \u2026 and such things have befallen me Aaron sought to excuse the failure of the priests to eat their portions of the sacrifice by explaining to Moses that his sons thought they should not eat of the sacrifice because they were in mourning. From Deuteronomy 26:14 we may infer that mourners who had just sustained a loss were not allowed to partake of devoted foods. Hebrew ve-\u02beakhalti is to be understood here as a pluperfect, contrary to fact: \u201cHad I eaten.\u201d
\n20. And when Moses heard this, he approved The Hebrew idiom \u201cto find favor in the sight of\u201d conveys approval. Moses reassured Aaron that the priestly duties, requiring the priests to partake of the sacrifice, took precedence over personal bereavement. Consequently, as had been stressed in verse 6, the priests were forbidden to mourn.
\nCHAPTER 11
\nThe Laws of Kashrut: Proper Foods and Vessels
\nChapter 11 of Leviticus ordains a system of dietary laws that specify what an Israelite may and may not eat as food. All that grows in the soil of the earth may be eaten, but a complex regimen of permitted and forbidden types governs the consumption of air, land, and water creatures. Leviticus 11 is one of two major collections of dietary laws in the Torah, the other being Deuteronomy 14. For a discussion of the meaning of the dietary laws, see Excursus 2.
\nIn enumerating the various types of animals, birds, fish, insects, and reptiles, this chapter, like its counterpart in Deuteronomy, follows well-known ancient Near Eastern traditions. The school texts of ancient Syria and Mesopotamia, used for the training of ancient scribes, include columns that list the names of animals, birds, and other living creatures according to class and species. In several respects, Leviticus 11 goes further than the dietary laws of Deuteronomy 14. First of all, it deals with one of the primary concerns of the priesthood, the impurity that results from physical contact with that which is intrinsically impure. Not only would contact with carcasses of prohibited creatures render an Israelite impure, a principle present in Deuteronomy 14, but such impurity would in turn be transmitted to vessels and foodstuffs. Whereas Deuteronomy 14 merely classifies creatures that are considered impure, Leviticus 11, in addition, legislates the status of humans, vessels, and foodstuffs contaminated by contact with impure creatures.
\nDuring the early rabbinic period, both of these subjects\u2014the dietary laws and the purity of vessels and foodstuffs\u2014developed into major categories of religious law, and they have remained important elements of Jewish religious life ever since. These prescribed patterns of behavior, usually referred to as kashrut, meaning \u201cfitness\u201d (of foods and vessels), are discussed in \u201cLeviticus in the Ongoing Jewish Tradition.\u201d Here emphasis is on the priestly legislation of the biblical period, as seen in its historical context.
\nThe Dietary Laws:Two Collections (vv. 1\u201323) The dietary restrictions reflect the idea, known the world over, that what one eats is a matter of religious significance. In later Jewish tradition, the impurity resulting from the consumption of forbidden foods became known as tum\u02beat kodesh, \u201cimpurity pertaining to sanctity.\u201d The key word in chapter 11 is tame\u02be, an adjective meaning \u201cimpure\u201d; and the chapter concerns itself with the prevention of impurity and with its elimination, once contracted. No rituals of purification involving water, oil, or blood are prescribed for cleansing a person of impurity that resulted from eating forbidden foods per se. Nevertheless, the physical contact necessarily involved in eating forbidden foods required sacrificing a sin offering, according to the law of 5:2.
\nA comparison of Leviticus 11 with Deuteronomy 14 reveals that the two sources are closely related in form and content. In Leviticus 11, the dietary laws are viewed as part of a larger purity system that is basic to the priestly tradition. A detailed comparison of the two chapters yields the following information:
\nTHE DIETARY LAWS: TWO COLLECTIONS
\nDeuteronomy 14
\nLeviticus 11
\n1. Permitted land animals
\nA list of ten animals, domesticated and hunted.
\n1. The same two criteria, and the same list of prohibited land animals. (vv. 3\u20138)
\ncriteria:Fully cleft hoofs and chew their cud<\/p>\n
Prohibited land animals
\nThe camel, hare, daman, and swine. (vv. 3\u20138)<\/p>\n
2. Water creatures
\n2. The same two criteria, stated both positively and negatively. (vv. 9\u201312)
\nCRITERIA:Both fins and scales. (vv. 9\u201310)<\/p>\n
3. Birds
\nA list of prohibited birds. No general criteria stated. (vv. 11\u201318)
\n3. Essentially the same list of prohibited birds. No general criteria stated. (vv. 13\u201319)
\n4. Winged, swarming creatures
\nA general statement prohibiting all creatures of this type. (vv. 19\u201320)
\n4. The same general statement. However, four types of permitted locusts are listed.<\/p>\n
CRITERION:Jointed legs. (vv. 20\u201323)
\n5. Prohibited
\nEating the dead body of any animal. (v. 21)
\n5. This prohibition is not explicitly stated, but it may be inferred from other provisions of the law.
\n6. Prohibited
\nSeething a kid in its mother\u2019s milk. (v. 21)
\n6. No such prohibition is stated.<\/p>\n
7 Not specifically stated.
\n7. Prohibited
\nConsumption or tactile contact with the dead bodies of land and amphibious creatures. Eight creatures are listed, including several types of lizards. (vv. 29\u201331)
\n8. Not specifically stated.
\n8. Prohibited
\n(a) All creatures that walk on their bellies; (b) all four-legged creatures that walk on paws; (c) all many-legged creatures. (vv. 41\u201343)
\nWith respect to land animals, birds, and fish, the two sources have essentially the same provisions. Chapter 11 introduces specific provisions in two categories: (1) land and amphibious swarming creatures, known collectively as sherets, and (2) reptiles and animals having many legs.
\nImpurity (vv. 24\u201340,) Leviticus 11 also deals with the subject of the impurities that result from various kinds of contact with the dead bodies of prohibited creatures. This subject first appears in verses 24\u201328, where such contact renders an Israelite impure until evening. Similarly, carrying any part of such dead creatures renders one impure until evening and requires the laundering of one\u2019s clothing. Verses 29\u201339 deal with the impurity resulting from contact with the dead bodies of eight specified swarming creatures (sherets). This impurity is of even greater consequence, as not only are humans rendered impure but also functional vessels and their edible contents. The differing effects of water, as set forth in chapter 11, are particularly important. Water purifies impure persons and vessels, and the water of cisterns and springs is not inherently susceptible to contamination by swarming creatures. At the same time, because water conditions the seeds used for planting, it renders them susceptible to contamination. Therefore, seed that has been dampened with water and that subsequently comes in contact with the dead body of any prohibited swarming creature is then considered impure. If, on the other hand, no water has dampened the seed in the first place, it is not subject to contamination and remains pure in the event of such contact.
\nLeviticus 11:39\u201340 prohibits contact with the corpse (nevelah) of a pure animal, that is, one permitted as food if properly slaughtered; such contact renders an Israelite impure. One who eats any part of it is impure and must launder his clothing. As in the case of prohibited foodstuffs, the above impurities require the person affected to offer a sacrifice in expiation, according to the laws of 5:2. Verses 41\u201344 contain general admonitions that reinforce the impurity associated with swarming creatures. The chapter concludes with an exhortation to observe the laws of purity, a prerequisite to becoming a holy people. In practical terms, an Israelite or priest who was in the state of impurity was prevented from entering or approaching the sanctuary\u2014which, in turn, protected the sanctuary. Obviously, priests, who frequented the sanctuary, were more likely to defile it. Nevertheless the laws of chapter 11 are addressed to all Israelites, since impurity anywhere in the settlement had the effect of provoking God\u2019s wrath and at least indirectly threatening the purity of the sanctuary.
\nBoth Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11 are concerned with the category of tame\u02be, \u201cimpure.\u201d Deuteronomy uses the term to\u02bfevah, \u201cabomination,\u201d in characterizing violations of purity, whereas Leviticus employs the synonymous term shekets.
\nPERMITTED AND FORBIDDEN FOOD SOURCES (vv. 1\u201323)
\nLAND ANIMALS (vv. 2\u20138)
\n2. These are the creatures that you may eat The Hebrew terms \u1e25ayyah, \u201ccreature,\u201d and behemah, \u201canimal,\u201d have varying connotations. Here \u1e25ayyah is a generic term meaning \u201cliving creature,\u201d whereas behemah is defined as that \u201cwhich inhabits the land\u201d (\u02beasher \u02bfal ha-\u02bearets). This definition is corroborated by the contrasting category \u201call that live in the water\u201d in verse 9.
\n3. any animal that has true hoofs Our chapter does not list the ten permitted land animals as does Deuteronomy 14:4. Only the general rule is stated here, as in Deuteronomy 14:6. There is no reason, however, to doubt that both sources permit the same land animals as food.
\nHebrew mafreset parsah means literally \u201cthat grows hoofs,\u201d just as in the continuation of the verse ve-shosa\u02bfat shesa\u02bf means literally \u201cthat cleaves a cleavage,\u201d the verb shasa\u02bf meaning \u201cto split, cut through.\u201d Grammarians refer to this syntax as the cognate accusative since both the verbal form and its object derive from the same root. Deuteronomy 14:6 is more explicit: ve-shosa\u02bfat shesa\u02bf shetei perasot, \u201cand exhibits the cleavage of two hoofs.\u201d To qualify as pure, an animal\u2019s hoofs must be split all the way through, producing two toes, of a sort, so that the animal in question does not walk on paws, called kappayim in verse 27 below.
\nHebrew me\u02bfaleh gerah means literally \u201cwhich brings up the cud.\u201d Rashi explains this as follows: \u201cThe animal brings up and regurgitates its food from its intestines back into its mouth, to fragmentize and grind it.\u201d This describes a class of animal known as ruminants, those whose stomach has four compartments. The Hebrew word gerah, \u201ccud,\u201d derives from the verb garar, \u201cto pull, drag along,\u201d and it may be related to the word garon, \u201cthroat.\u201d
\n4. The following \u2026 you shall not eat The list of four unclean land animals consists of what may be called borderline cases, animals that exhibit one but not both of the required physical criteria. The likelihood of mistaking such animals for pure animals was greater.
\nthe camel The camel (an English word that derives from the common Semitic word gamal) does not have fully cleft hoofs. Its hoof is split in its upper part, but bound together in its lower part.
\nit is unclean for you Hebrew tame\u02be is better translated \u201cimpure\u201d because at issue is not a notion of hygienic cleanliness, as we know it, but of purity as a ritual condition.
\n5. the daman Hebrew shafan designates the Syrian hyrax, a small mammal. It does not actually chew its cud, but gives that impression because it has protrusions in its stomach, which suggest that its stomach might have compartments, as is characteristic of the ruminants.
\n6. the hare Hebrew \u02bearnevet, \u201chare,\u201d is actually a rodent. It is not a ruminant but gives the impression of being one because it munches its food so noticeably.
\n7. the swine Hebrew \u1e25azzir, \u201cpig, swine,\u201d was widely domesticated in ancient Canaan and even raised for food. No distinction is made here between the wild and the domesticated species of the swine. It is the only domesticated animal used as food in biblical times that has a truly split hoof but does not chew its cud.
\nThe verbal form written yiggar is probably to be vocalized yagor, \u201cbrings up,\u201d from the root garar. The clause ve-gerah-yiggar (that is, yagor) is an alternate way of stating ma\u02bfaleh gerah, \u201cbrings up the cud,\u201d as in verse 3 above.
\n8. You shall not eat of their flesh or touch their carcasses The term nevelah is ambiguous because it can designate the carcass of an animal or human being and because it does not indicate the cause of death\u2014whether by natural means or by being killed or slaughtered in some way. However, in some contexts it refers specifically to animals that died a natural death.
\nHere the sense is general: Not only is one prohibited from eating the meat of forbidden animals but also from touching or handling any part of their bodies, as would normally occur in preparing meat as food. This rule was undoubtedly intended as a safeguard against possible consumption of meat from such prohibited animals. In Leviticus 17:15 and Deuteronomy 14:21 we find the prohibition against eating the flesh of any animal that died or was torn by beasts.
\nWATER CREATURES (vv. 9\u201312)
\n9. that has fins and scales Hebrew senappir is a word of uncertain origin occurring only here and in Deuteronomy 14:9\u201310. It may be cognate with Akkadian sappartu, \u201ca horny protrusion.\u201d Hebrew kaskeset is translated by Targum Onkelos as kelifan, \u201cpeels,\u201d and probably refers to the soft scales of the fish.
\n10. among all the swarming things of the water The Hebrew verb sharats, cognate with Akkadian shar\u0101tsu, means \u201cto come to life, crawl, swarm.\u201d All those water creatures that do not swim by the usual means of fins but, instead, crawl are considered impure. In the later tradition it was explained that fish were considered pure if they had fins and scales at any time, even if they shed them at some point in their life cycle, or only developed them in the course of their growth.
\nthey are an abomination for you Hebrew shekets is cognate with the Akkadian verb shaq\u0101tsu, \u201cto be of bad appearance\u201d\u2014hence \u201cdetestable.\u201d Here again, as in verse 8 above, the prohibition affects both eating and touching.
\nCREATURES OF THE SKY (vv. 13\u201317)
\n13. The following you shall abominate among the birds There are no overall physical criteria by which to distinguish pure birds from impure birds. Rather, a long list of prohibited birds is provided, the assumption being that all others would be permitted. Determining which birds are permitted has been in some cases a matter of custom and has resulted in persistent discrepancies among various communities in the course of Jewish history. Based on information provided in the Hebrew Bible, especially from religious law, we know that all permitted birds fall into the following classes: (1) Columbiformes: various types of doves and pigeons; (2) Galliformes: hens and quail (selav), gathered as food in the Sinai desert as told in the narratives of Exodus 16:13 and Numbers 11:31\u201332; (3) Anseriformes: domestic geese and ducks; and (4) Passerines: specifically the house sparrow (deror).
\nThe list of prohibited birds given here is virtually identical with that of Deuteronomy 14. It does not correspond exactly to zoological classifications and even includes the bat (\u02bfatallef), which is technically a winged rodent, not a bird. The impure birds are virtually all birds of prey. They include the following: (1) Four types of falcons: ta\u1e25mas, \u201cfalcon\u201d; nets, \u201csparrow hawk\u201d; da\u02beah (dayyah in Deut. 14:13), \u201ckite\u201d; and \u02beayyah, \u201cbuzzard.\u201d These eat living flesh and carrion. (2) Four types of vultures or eagles: nesher, \u201ceagle, griffin, vulture\u201d; \u02bfozniyyah, \u201cblack vulture\u201d; ra\u1e25am, \u201cEgyptian vulture\u201d; peres, \u201cbearded vulture.\u201d These eat carrion. (3) Six types of owls: yanshuf, \u201clong-eared owl\u201d; bat ya\u02bfanah, \u201cdark, desert eagle owl\u201d; tinshemet, \u201cbarn, screech owl\u201d; kos, \u201clittle owl\u201d; ka\u02beat, \u201cSaharan owl\u201d; and shalakh, \u201cfish owl, ostrich.\u201d These are nocturnal birds of prey. (4) The raven, \u02bforev. Ravens eat living flesh and carrion. Several types of ravens were known in biblical lands. (5) Marsh, or sea birds: \u1e25asidah, \u201cstork\u201d; \u02beanafah, \u201cheron\u201d; and sha\u1e25af, \u201csea gull.\u201d
\nThere is some uncertainty about nomenclature, which is why the renderings given here differ in some cases from those provided in the translation. The general classifications, however, are fairly clear.
\nWINGED INSECTS (vv. 20\u201323)
\n20. All winged swarming things The section on winged insects (vv. 20\u201323) provides a classic instance of what students of literature call inclusio. The section begins in verse 20 with a general statement, which is repeated with only slight variations in verse 23. Both statements are prohibitive, whereas the intervening two verses (21\u201322) state exceptions to the overall prohibition. The expression \u201cwinged swarming things\u201d (sherets ha\u02bfof) is a roundabout way of describing insects.
\n21. But these you may eat \u2026 all that have, above their feet, jointed legs to leap with on the ground The Hebrew is to be read \u02beasher lo (\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5), \u201cwhich has,\u201d not \u02beasher lo\u02be (\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0), \u201cwhich is not,\u201d as the Masoretic text is written. There are other similar cases in the Hebrew Bible, some already noted by ancient and medieval scribes, of the confusion of these two short homophones. Hebrew kera\u02bfayim, \u201cjointed legs,\u201d is a term for the hind legs, or hocks, of animals. Hebrew nitter, \u201cto leap,\u201d is unique in biblical Hebrew and is translated on the basis of the context.
\nFour types of locusts, each in turn comprising several varieties, are permitted: (1) \u02bearbeh, a general term for locust, as in Joel 2:25; (2) sol\u02bfam, grasshopper; (3) \u1e25argol, cricket, grasshopper; and (4) \u1e25agav, bald locust, grasshopper.
\n23. But all other winged swarming things The types of locusts listed above are permitted but all others (ve-khol) are forbidden. Even today, grasshoppers are part of the diet in some countries.
\nTHE CONDUCTIVITY OF IMPURITY (vv. 24\u201340)
\nThis part of chapter 11 deals with impurity resulting from several kinds of contact\u2014such as touching, carrying, containing\u2014that render persons, vessels, and foodstuffs impure in varying degrees. Verses 24\u201328 establish the principle that mere contact with the carcasses of impure creatures causes impurity, even without consumption of them. Verses 29\u201338 introduce a new category of impure creatures: reptiles, whose impurity is even more consequential than that of land, water, and sky creatures. Verses 39\u201340 deal with the impurity resulting from contact with the carcasses of pure land animals.
\n24. And the following shall make you unclean Hebrew u-le-\u02beelleh, \u201cand to these,\u201d refers to what follows. Again we have an inclusio: Verses 24\u201325 are virtually repeated in verses 27b\u201328; what intervenes here in verses 26\u201327a does not state the exceptions but, rather, details the rule.
\n27. Also all animals that walk on paws \u2026 whoever touches their carcasses Hebrew kaf here refers to paws, as distinct from toes or from completely split hoofs. Tactile contact with the carcass of an impure creature serves to render only the person involved impure, whereas carrying something impure results in the contamination of one\u2019s clothing as well.
\n29. The following shall be unclean for you Eight types of swarming land creatures are listed, including four types of lizards: \u1e25oled, \u201cmole\u201d; \u02bfakhbar, \u201cmouse\u201d; tsav, \u201cgreat lizard\u201d; \u02beanakah, \u201cgecko\u201d; koa\u1e25, \u201cland crocodile, monitor\u201d; leta\u02beah, \u201clizard\u201d; \u1e25omet, \u201csand lizard\u201d; and tinshemet, \u201cchameleon.\u201d The name of this last reptile is identical with that of the barn, screech owl, listed in verse 18. Both are so called for the sounds they make, despite their differing natures.
\n31. whoever touches them when they are dead This anticipates the references to nevelah, \u201ccarcass,\u201d as an alternative way of describing a dead creature in verses 35\u201340.
\n32. And anything on which one of them falls when dead Beginning in this verse, and continuing through verse 38, we have the biblical basis of what later was to become an elaborate system of purity in Judaism (affecting vessels and foodstuffs) to which an entire tractate of the Mishnah, Kelim, is devoted.
\nThe clause \u02beasher yippol \u02bfalav, \u201cthat falls upon it,\u201d is to be contrasted with what is stated in verse 33: \u02beasher yippol mehem \u02beel tokho, \u201cinto which one of them falls.\u201d Under priestly law, vessels made of wood, leather, and certain types of cloth become impure by means of exterior contact alone, whereas ceramic vessels (with the exception of stoves and ovens) become impure only if the contaminating substance enters their interior space. This is explained in Mishnah Kelim 2:1. For this reason, ceramic vessels could be protected from impurity by having a lid fastened on them, according to the law of Numbers 19:15, explained in Mishnah Kelim 10:1.
\nBe it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack Rather, \u201cBut if any vessel of wood, of cloth, or of skin, or of sackcloth.\u201d In a legal text such as this, a technical translation is preferable, and this verse is speaking specifically of a vessel (keli). In the later tradition, keli is defined as a functional object \u02beasher ye\u02bfaseh mela\u02bekhah bahem, \u201cwith which a task can be performed,\u201d as our verse explains; and as that which has interior space, a \u201creceptacle,\u201d beit kibbul, in rabbinic terminology. Verse 32, referring to vessels made of such materials as cloth, wood, or leather, indicates that such vessels may be cleansed in water and that they remain impure only until evening.
\nHebrew beged is defined as something woven of cloth, and sak, as something made of goat\u2019s hair or the hair of a similar animal. That such vessels of cloth, leather, and goat\u2019s hair can be purified in water may also be learned from Numbers 31:20, which deals with the purification of spoils of war: \u201cYou shall also purify everything woven of cloth, every vessel of leather, everything made of goat\u2019s hair, and every vessel of wood.\u201d It is implicit that food contained in such contaminated vessels is also impure.
\n33. And if any of those falls into an earthen vessel A ceramic vessel does not become impure until the dead swarming creatures enter inside it; should this happen, there is no remedy but to smash the vessel.
\n34. As to any food that may be eaten Solid food that has been dampened by water and then comes into contact with dead swarming creatures becomes impure because water is a conductor of impurity. Similarly, liquids inside contaminated vessels become impure.
\n35. Everything on which the carcass of any of them falls This statement, which refers directly to verse 32 above, in effect restates the general rule governing forbidden swarming creatures and then applies it to stoves and ovens. Like vessels of wood, cloth, leather, and animal hair, and in contradistinction to ceramic vessels generally, ovens and stoves become contaminated as soon as dead swarming creatures fall onto them, a condition for which there is no remedy. Impure stoves and ovens must be smashed.
\nThe word tanur is defined as a large, covered ceramic oven, whereas kirayim designates a grate or stove top in which fire is kindled and upon which two pots could be placed for cooking. Often such appliances were installed in the floor of a room, set in a corner flush with the walls. It was probably thought that the intense heat generated in stoves and ovens made the ceramic material more susceptible to impurity than was the case with ceramic storage vessels.
\nFrom Numbers 31:22 we learn that metal vessels may be purified in fire. Stone vessels are not susceptible to impurity in any case.
\n36. However, a spring or cistern in which water is collected shall be clean The Hebrew adverb \u02beakh, \u201chowever,\u201d draws a contrast: Whereas water generally renders foodstuffs susceptible to impurity, this is true only of water \u201cplaced in them,\u201d that is, water emitting from a vessel that is detached from the earth. By contrast, neither rainwater in a cistern nor natural bodies of water transmit impurity. Hebrew bor is a technical term for a \u201ccistern\u201d in which rainwater is collected from the surrounding area. The Hebrew term mikveh ha-mayim designates natural bodies of water, as is evident from Genesis 1:10: \u201cAnd the gathering of waters (mikveh ha-mayim) He called seas.\u201d
\n38. But if water is put on the seed Water conditions seed, rendering it susceptible to impurity. The verbal form yutttan actually represents the fairly rare internal Kal passive, but its true morphology was probably not recognized. More precisely, the form is yutan. Dampened seed\u2014but not dry seed\u2014becomes impure if the dead body of a forbidden swarming creature falls onto it. It is not entirely clear why the impurity associated with the sherets, \u201cswarming creature,\u201d discussed in verses 29\u201337 is more severe in its effects than that associated with the dead bodies of other creatures.
\n39. If an animal that you may eat has died Physical contact with the nevelah, \u201ccarcass,\u201d even of a permitted animal, renders a person impure until evening.
\n40. anyone who eats of its carcass \u2026 and anyone who carries its carcass This statement reiterates the prohibition, encountered earlier in verse 8, against eating meat of any animal, even a permitted one, that has died a natural death. Similarly, carrying the carcass or any part of it produces impurity. In both cases the person involved must launder his clothes.
\n41. All things that swarm upon the earth are an abomination Verses 41\u201344 express the concept of shekets, \u201cabomination.\u201d They repeat the definition of forbidden swarming creatures and warn Israelites against becoming contaminated by the impurity of these creatures. The key verb in these verses is shikkets, \u201cto make abominable, declare abominable.\u201d The Israelites must regard the sherets as abominable, lest they themselves become abominable, which is to say, impure.
\n44. you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy This statement is explained in the Comment to 19:2, where it introduces the theme of Israel\u2019s imperative to become a holy nation.
\nPOSTSCRIPT (vv. 46\u201347)
\n46. These are the instructions This is a fairly typical postscript, which often appears at the conclusion of a major code of law.
\n47. for distinguishing between \u2026 the living things that may be eaten A similar admonition occurs in 20:25. The purpose of the code of law promulgated in chapter 11 is to enable the Israelites to distinguish (lehavdil) between the permitted and forbidden foodstuffs under priestly instruction.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 12
\nRegulations Concerning the New Mother
\nTazria\u02bf
\nChapter 12 defines the ritual status of an Israelite mother after childbirth. Whereas her child is born pure, she is considered to be impure for varying periods of time depending on the sex of the child\u2014seven days for a son, fourteen days for a daughter. The text is not explicit about the precise nature of the impurity sustained by a new mother during this initial period, although her impurity is compared with that of a menstruating woman. It is to be assumed that she was not permitted to have marital relations with her husband and that her impure condition would cause defilement through certain types of contact.
\nSubsequent to the initial seven days of impurity, there was an additional period of thirty-three days after the birth of a son and sixty-six days after the birth of a daughter during which the new mother awaited her final purification. Although she could engage in marital relations, she was barred from entry into the sanctuary and from contact with \u201csacred things,\u201d pending her final purification by rites of expiation. At the conclusion of this extended time period, the new mother was required to present a sin offering (\u1e25atta\u02bet), accompanied by a burnt offering, to signify the elimination of all impurity. The priest performed these rites of expiation on the woman\u2019s behalf, and she was declared pure again.
\nThe legislation of chapter 12 is of additional interest because in verse 3 it also includes the requirement that a male child be circumcised on the eighth day after birth.
\n2. When a woman at childbirth bears a male Rather, \u201cwhen a woman is inseminated and bears a male.\u201d The formulation \u02beishah ki tazria\u02bf ve-yaledah is ambiguous. The translation takes the form of the verb tazria\u02bf as causative, \u201cto bear seed.\u201d This is its sense in Genesis 1:11\u201312: \u02bfesev mazria\u02bf zero\u02bf literally \u201cplants that bear seed.\u201d On this basis, our verse describes a unitary event: childbirth. An alternative would be to understand the verb tazria\u02bf as describing conception before childbirth, much in the same way as the commonplace idiom \u201cshe conceived and bore\u201d conveys the two sequential stages of the process. Since in Numbers 5:28 the passive ve-nizr\u02bf ah zera\u02bf means \u201cshe is able to retain seed,\u201d the form tazria\u02bf should also be understood as referring to conception. The Hifil form of the verb often connotes physical conditions and is not consistently causative. It is worth noting that the Samaritan version reads t-z-r-\u02bf instead of t-z-r-y-\u02bf, the Masoretic version. This suggests that the Samaritan version understood a Nifal form here: tizzara\u02bf, literally \u201cShe shall be inseminated.\u201d In fact, the Torah recitation of the Samaritans, as recorded phonetically by Z. Ben-Hayyim, has tizzara\u02bf. This information would seem to endorse the interpretation proposed here.
\nshe shall be unclean as at the time of her menstrual infirmity The implication is that not only the duration but the actual nature of the impurity resembles that of a menstruating woman. As Hoffmann notes, it is as though the text read ke-vi-ymei, \u201cas in the days of.\u2026\u201d This is more clearly expressed in verse 5, literally, \u201cShe shall be unclean two weeks in a manner like her menstruation (keniddatah).\u201d
\nThe impurity of the menstruating woman is defined in 15:19\u201324, where the term niddah, \u201cmenstruation,\u201d is explained. A menstruating woman was impure primarily with respect to marital relations, though there were certain additional restrictions.
\nHebrew devotah, \u201cher infirmity,\u201d derives from the root davah, \u201cto be ill, weak.\u201d In 15:33, the menstruating woman is called davah, \u201cinfirm.\u201d
\n3. On the eighth day the flesh of bis foreskin shall be circumcised The Hebrew verb yimmol is passive (Nifal), from the root m-w-l, \u201cto cut off.\u201d It is used only with respect to the foreskin (\u02bforlah) or its metaphorical expressions. The essential law of circumcision is stated in Genesis 17:10\u201314, within the context of the covenant between God and Abraham. The practice of circumcision was extant in other ancient cultures, but it assumed a new significance in Israelite religion.
\nThere is undoubtedly a correlation between the eight-day period between birth and circumcision and the duration of the initial period of the mother\u2019s impurity after giving birth to a male child, as Hoffmann states.
\n4. remain The verb yashav, \u201cto sit, dwell,\u201d can also mean \u201cto await, remain inactive,\u201d as it does here.
\nblood purification The meaning of this translation for Hebrew demei toharah is not clear. Perhaps a more literal rendering is preferable: \u201cpure blood.\u201d The sense of the statement is that discharges of blood that occur after the initial period of impurity are unlike menstrual blood and are not regarded as being impure.
\nshe shall not touch any consecrated thing The rabbinic sages debated the meaning of kodesh, \u201cconsecrated thing.\u201d A broad definition would include within this category such items as terumah, the allocations to the priests. According to that definition the wife of a priest who had just given birth would be prohibited from partaking of these foodstuffs.
\nuntil her period of purification is completed Rather, \u201cuntil her period of purity is completed.\u201d The noun tohar, \u201cpurity,\u201d is masculine. For this reason the Masorctes inserted a dot (mappik) in the final heh, producing tohar-ah, \u201cher purity.\u201d It is not the purification that lasts so long but, more precisely, the time required until the woman is declared pure again.
\nThe status of a new mother during this extended period of time was complex. On the one hand, she was no longer impure because of discharges. On the other hand, she was still barred from entry into the sanctuary and from contact with consecrated things. The rabbinic sages compared her status to that of a person impure for a day. Until sunset, rites of purification could not be undertaken; and yet such a person was on his way to final purification, and only time separated him from it. Similarly, the new mother had to wait until a specific period of time had elapsed before she could be declared pure, a period referred to as yama\u02be \u02bearikha\u02be, \u201can extended day.\u201d Rashi comments that her sun would set, so to speak, only after thirty-three or sixty-six days, as the case may be.
\n5. If she bears a female The time periods are doubled for a female, but the provisions are the same. See Excursus 3 for more on the sex differentiation and on the impurity of the new mother.
\n6. On the completion of her period of purification Rather, \u201cof her period of purity.\u201d After the termination of the second period (during which the new mother was essentially pure for private purposes) rites are performed so as to readmit her into the sanctuary and into the religious life of the community.
\nshe shall bring to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting As prescribed in 17:3f., all sacrifices are to be offered at one cult site, the Tent of Meeting, on the altar of burnt offerings.
\na lamb \u2026 for a burnt offering On the manner of presenting a burnt offering (\u02bfolah) see chapter 1. The requirement of two offerings, the burnt offering and the sin offering (\u1e25atta\u02bet), requires clarification. The type of \u1e25atta\u02bet offered by individual Israelites, as in this case, served a dual function. It propitiated God and also compensated the priesthood for its indispensable services in securing expiation. This is why the priests partake of sections of the \u1e25atta\u02bet sacrifice.
\na pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering The translation \u201csin offering\u201d for Hebrew \u1e25atta\u02bet is acceptable if understood properly, as it is in our verse. Ancient man seldom distinguished between \u201csin\u201d and \u201cimpurity.\u201d In man\u2019s relation to God, all sinfulness produced impurity. All impurity, however contracted, could lead to sinfulness if not attended to, and failure to deal properly with impurity aroused God\u2019s anger. The point is that the requirement to present a sin offering does not necessarily presume any offense on the part of the person so obligated. This offering was often needed solely to remove impurity. Childbirth, for example, was not sinful\u2014it involved no violation of law\u2014yet a sin offering was required.
\nThe sequence and combination of the two offerings also requires comment. The same rites are required in purification after certain diseases and for the Nazirite. The \u1e25atta\u02bet, in removing the impurity, restored to the person the right of access to the sanctuary; and the \u02bfolah that followed immediately upon it symbolized this renewed acceptability. It served as an invocation to God, the first act of worship after being restored to purity. God\u2019s acceptance of the \u02bfolah signaled the readmission of the individual into the religious life of the community.
\n7. and make expiation on her behalf For the meaning of this formulation, see Comment to 4:20.
\nfrom her flow of blood See Comment to 20:18. Hebrew makor is a synonym of ma\u02bfayan, \u201cspring\u201d (Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Hos. 13:15), and can refer to a source of liquid flowing from the body, for instance, tears, as in Jeremiah 8:23: \u201cOh, that my head were water, My eyes a fount of tears (mekor dim\u02bfah).\u201d
\n8. If, however, her means do not suffice The provision for a reduction in the cost of the sacrifice is standard for a number of required purifications and religious obligations. Insistence on the full sacrifice would have deprived poor Israelites of expiation when impurity was incurred through no fault of their own.
\nTHE PURIFICATION OF SKIN DISEASES (13:1\u201314:57)
\nChapters 13\u201314 prescribe the role of the Israelite priesthood in diagnosing and purifying persons afflicted with a skin disease known as tsara\u02bfat. This disease also contaminated fabrics and leather as well as plastered or mud-covered building stones. The identification of biblical tsara\u02bfat with \u201cleprosy\u201d is unlikely, if by \u201cleprosy\u201d is meant Hansen\u2019s disease; for the symptomatology provided in chapter 13 does not conform to the nature or course of that disease. Undoubtedly, a complex of various ailments was designated by the term tsara\u02bfat.
\nChapters 13\u201314 may be outlined as follows: (1) acute and transient tsara\u02bfat in humans (13:1\u201346); (2) acute and transient tsara\u02bfat in fabrics and leather (13:47\u201359); (3) purification rites for a person who has healed after transient tsara\u02bfat (14:1\u201332); (4) tsara\u02bfat in plastered or mud-covered building stones (14:33\u201353); and (5) a postscript to chapters 13\u201314 (14:54\u201357).
\nThe legislation of chapters 13\u201314 highlights one of the lesser-understood functions of the Israelite priesthood, whose role went beyond officiating in the cult and attending to the administration of the sanctuary. In 14:11 we read of ha-koben ha-metahher, \u201cthe purificatory priest,\u201d who regularly dealt with visible, usually contagious illnesses. He combined medical and ritual procedures in safeguarding the purity of the sanctuary and of the Israelite community, which was threatened by the incidence of disease. He instructed the populace and was responsible for enforcing the prescribed procedures.
\nIn the laws of chapters 13\u201314, acute diseases are subsumed under the category of impurity (tum\u02beah). The afflicted person was treated as an impure substance would be and was quarantined until such time as it could be ascertained, on the basis of observable symptoms, whether the ailment was acute or transient. If it was not acute, the sufferer could be pronounced pure (\u1e6dabor) after a given period and be readmitted to the area of settlement. If, however, the symptoms indicated acute tsara\u02bfat (tsara\u02bfat mam\u02beeret), there was no cure, and the sufferer was banished from the settlement for as long as the disease persisted: in many cases, for life.
\nGenerally speaking, all disease was regarded as a punishment from God for some wrongdoing. In the case of tsara\u02bfat specifically, there was a tradition that it represented a punishment from God for acts of malice such as Miriam\u2019s malicious criticism of Moses, reported in Numbers 12:1\u20133. Precisely why skin diseases were singled out in the priestly codes is not certain. Tsara\u02bfat was undoubtedly quite prevalent in biblical Israel, and there are also the factors of its visibility and its presumed contagion.
\nCHAPTER 13
\nTHE SYMPTOMATOLOGY (vv. 1\u20138)
\nThe initial problem faced by the priest was to determine whether the sufferer had acute tsara\u02bfat or some less acute ailment with which it might be confused, but which would heal. If the initial examination did not immediately reveal symptoms of acute tsara\u02bfat, the person was held for further observation for two successive periods of seven days. The text describes the symptoms and prescribes the procedure to be followed. Acute tsara\u02bfat is indicated by a whitish discoloration of the body hair in the infected areas of the skin and by lesions that appear to be recessed or lower than the surrounding skin. If, after seven days, the lesions do not become enlarged, and if, within fourteen days, the hair in the infected areas reverts to a more normal, darker color, a determination may be made that the infection is not acute tsara\u02bfat. Otherwise, further quarantine is imposed; if the rash continues to spread, the person is considered to have acute tsara\u02bfat and is declared impure indefinitely.
\n2. When a person has on the skin of his body In this verse we find most of the recurring technical terms for the infections referred to in chapters 13\u201314, and it would be helpful to define these terms here.
\n(1) Se\u02beet, translated \u201cswelling.\u201d A more precise rendering is \u201clocal inflammation, boil, mole.\u201d This is a generic classification for diverse local inflammations or protrusions, which may assume any one of several forms. In 13:28, Hebrew se\u02beet ha-mikhvah, \u201cthe se\u02beet of the burn,\u201d is synonymous with tsarevet ha-mikhvah, \u201cthe scab, scar of the burn.\u201d So, se\u02beet and tsarevet both designate similar protrusions.
\n(2) Sapa\u1e25at or mispa\u1e25at, translated \u201crash.\u201d Literally, sapa\u1e25at characterizes the ailment as \u201cgrowing\u201d out of the skin, that is, \u201cbreaking out.\u201d This term is not the name of a specific disease of the skin but, rather, identifies a symptomatology in the same way that \u201crash\u201d does in English.
\n(3) Bakeret, translated \u201cdiscoloration,\u201d but more literally \u201cwhite, shiny spot.\u201d It may designate a disease known as vitiligo, a whitish ailment of the skin called bohak in 13:39. Hebrew baheret derives from the adjective bahir, \u201cshiny,\u201d just as bohak derives from a verb meaning \u201cto shine.\u201d
\n(4) Nega\u02bf, translated \u201caffection.\u201d This is the generic term for plague and for various sorts of diseases. Literally, it means \u201ctouch\u201d and reflects the widespread, ancient belief that gods afflicted persons by their touch. The biblical example closest to expressing this belief occurs in the story of Jacob\u2019s contact with the angel of God. The angel \u201ctouched\u201d Jacob\u2019s hip, which caused Jacob to limp (Gen. 32:26, 32f.). The \u201ctouch\u201d of divine beings thus became a general term for affliction, and it expressed the belief that one suffered disease as a punishment from God.
\n(5) Tsara\u02bfat, translated \u201cscaly affection.\u201d This rendering of tsara\u02bfat is based on the given symptomatology. The etymology is uncertain.
\nit shall be reported to Aaron the priest Alternatively, \u201cHe shall be brought to the priest.\u201d The point is that the afflicted person must be brought before the priest. The antecedent of the verb ve-huva\u02be, \u201che shall be brought,\u201d is \u02beadam, \u201ca person.\u201d This interpretation correlates with verse 6: ve-nir\u02be ah shenit \u02beel ha-kohen, \u201che shall appear a second time before the priest.\u201d
\n3. If hair in the affected patch has turned white Hebrew hafakh lavan, \u201chas turned white,\u201d is the opposite of kehah, \u201chas faded,\u201d in verse 6. Usually Hebrew hafakh means \u201cto cause a change, overturn, reverse,\u201d and Ibn Ezra observes that its stative usage here is unusual. In verses 16 and 25 we find the usual passive form of the verb: ve-nehefkhah le-lavan, literally \u201cit turned into white.\u201d
\nappears to be deeper than the skin The meaning of Hebrew \u02bfamok, \u201cdeep,\u201d is explained by verse 20 and by 14:37, where this symptom is characterized as shafal min ha-\u02bfor, \u201clower than the skin.\u201d
\nWhen the priest sees it, he shall pronounce him unclean In these codes Hebrew timme\u02be means \u201cto declare, pronounce impure,\u201d just as, in verses 6, 13, and 17, tihher means \u201cto declare pure, purified.\u201d Literally, the object of the verb is the disease, not the person, but here and in some following verses we find instances of metonymy, a literary device whereby, in this instance, the disease is interchangeable with its victim. In referring to the disease, the text also refers to the person.
\n4. the priest shall isolate the affected person More precisely, Hebrew ve-hisgir means \u201che shall confine, lock up.\u201d Rashi notes that a special house was used for this purpose. The incident of Miriam\u2019s affliction with tsara\u02bfat, as recounted in Numbers 12:14\u201315, informs us that the place of quarantine was outside the camp. This is only to be expected, since the afflicted person may have been impure. Here again we have an instance of metonymy. Literally the text states that the disease is quarantined, meaning, actually, the diseased individual.
\n5. and if the affection has remained unchanged in color Hebrew \u02bfamad be-\u02bfeinav literally means \u201cit retained its appearance.\u201d The alternative way of stating this condition is ve-\u02beim ta\u1e25teiha ta\u02bfamod, \u201cand if it remains in its place,\u201d as in verse 23.
\nOur verse is somewhat redundant, reading literally \u201c\u2026 and if the affection remains unchanged in appearance, and has not become enlarged.\u201d The statement as a whole pertains to both size and shape.
\nand the disease has not spread on the skin The Hebrew verb pasah more precisely means \u201cto increase\u201d\u2014in size or in number. This symptom describes the enlargement of localized lesions, whereas \u201cspreading\u201d over the body is conveyed by the verb para\u1e25, \u201cto break out,\u201d as in verse 12.
\n6. if the affection has faded Hebrew kehah is the third person masculine perfect form of the verb \u201chas faded.\u201d
\nhe shall wash his clothes Laundering one\u2019s garments was a procedure frequently used in purification rites.
\n7. and been pronounced clean Literally, Hebrew le-tohorato means \u201cfor pronouncing him pure.\u201d
\nbe shall present himself again to the priest Hebrew shenit can mean \u201cagain,\u201d not only \u201cfor a second time.\u201d
\n8. it is leprosy That is to say, it is acute tsara\u02bfat.
\nCHRONIC AILMENTS (vv. 9\u201317)
\nIf a person with an \u201cold\u201d ailment, or what we would call a chronic condition, is brought to the priest, a different set of diagnostic criteria is applied. Exposed (\u201craw\u201d) flesh in an infected area indicates that the old ailment never healed properly. If, however, the exposed flesh is subsequently covered by new skin (referred to by the text as \u201cturning completely white\u201d), this indicates that the chronic tsara\u02bfat has healed.
\n9. When a person has a scaly affection That is to say, when a person shows the priest an old ailment of the skin that may represent the recurrence of chronic tsara\u02bfat.
\n10. a white swelling which has turned some has white Rather, \u201ca white inflammation, in which the hair has turned white.\u201d The antecedent of hafekhah lavan, \u201chas turned white,\u201d is se\u02beet, \u201cinflammation.\u201d The verb is stative, not transitive, or active, just as in verse 3.
\nwith a patch of undiscolored flesh Rather, \u201cof exposed flesh.\u201d This approximates the translation \u201cquick raw flesh,\u201d noted previously. The present translation could confuse the symptomatology, both here and in verses 13\u201316. The point is that when healing occurs, white, normal skin grows over the infected area, as indicated in verse 13. But, as verse 14 promptly informs us, the recurrence of infection is indicated by the reappearance of \u201craw\u201d flesh. This interpretation is virtually confirmed by verse 24, where mi\u1e25yat ha-mikhvah clearly means \u201cthe exposed flesh of the burn,\u201d and mi\u1e25yah derives from the same verbal root as \u1e25ai in verse 10.
\n11. it is chronic leprosy Hebrew noshenet means \u201cold, prior.\u201d In this case, there is no need for a period of quarantine because it is determined at the outset that acute tsara\u02bfat has recurred.
\n12. If the eruption spreads out over the skin Hebrew p-r-\u1e25 means \u201cto blossom. \u201cCompare Exodus 9:9: she\u1e25in porea\u1e25 \u02beaba\u02bfbu\u02bfot, \u201cdermatitis breaking out into boils.\u201d
\nso that it covers all the skin of the affected person Literally, \u201call the skin of the infection.\u201d This is another instance of metonymy.
\nThe idiom \u201cfrom head to foot,\u201d suggested here, is proverbial. In Isaiah 1:6 we read \u201cfrom head to foot, no spot is sound.\u201d An identical expression occurs frequently in Akkadian medical texts: i\u0161tu qaqq\u0101di\u0161u adi \u0161\u0113p\u0113\u0161u, \u201cfrom his head to his feet.\u201d
\nwherever the priest can see Rather, \u201cafter the priest\u2019s complete examination.\u201d The sense is temporal, not spatial.
\n13. for he has turned all white Exposed, or \u201craw,\u201d flesh is a reddish color, not white, like normal skin. This, then, is the criterion: Skin turned white is new skin that has grown over the \u201craw\u201d area.
\n14. But as soon us undiscolored flesh appears on it Rather, \u201cas soon as exposed flesh reappears on it.\u201d Exposed flesh, if it persists or recurs, is symptomatic of chronic tsara\u02bfat. It means that the old infection has not been covered by new skin and will not heal properly.
\n16. But if the undiscolored flesh again turns white Rather, \u201cBut if the exposed flesh recedes and resumes its whiteness.\u201d On the sense of Hebrew yashuv, \u201crecedes,\u201d see 2 Kings 20:9: \u201cShall the shadow advance ten steps or recede ten steps?\u201d The meaning here is that new (\u201cwhite\u201d) skin has grown over the infected, exposed flesh.
\nTSARA\u02bfAT AS A COMPLICATION (vv. 18\u201346)
\nThis section of the code deals with tsara\u02bfat as a complication arising out of other conditions, that is, as a secondary development. These symptoms are (1) she\u1e25in, a term characterizing a number of conditions similar to dermatitis (vv. 18\u201323); (2) a burn that became infected (vv. 24\u201328); (3) diseases of the hair (vv. 29\u201337); (4) a skin condition identified as vitiligo (vv. 38\u201339); and (5) ailments of the scalp and forehead (vv. 40\u201346).
\n18. When an inflammation appears on the skin of one\u2019s body and it heals Rather, \u201cWhen a dermatitis infection had occurred on one\u2019s skin but had healed.\u201d The primary condition, dermatitis (she\u1e25in), had healed, but a secondary infection had developed in the same area.
\n19. streaked with red The reduplicative form \u02beadamdam is diminutive: hence \u201creddish, pink,\u201d or the like. Similar forms recur in verses 23, 43, 49, and elsewhere.
\n20. If the priest finds The symptomatology here is essentially the same as that applicable to the diagnosis of an initial condition of tsara\u02bfat, in verses 1\u20138. This prescription employs the adjective shafal, \u201clow, deep,\u201d instead of \u02bfamok, \u201cdeep,\u201d as in verse 3.
\n22. If it should spread in the skin Rather, \u201cIf it should become enlarged on the skin.\u201d
\n23. it is the scar of the inflammation On the meaning of Hebrew tsarevet, see Comment to verse 2.
\n24. When the skin of one\u2019s body sustains a burn by fire Hebrew mikhvah, \u201cburn,\u201d is derived from the same root as keviyah, \u201ca burn,\u201d in Exodus 21:25.
\nand the patch from the burn is a discoloration Rather, \u201cand the exposed skin of the burn is a pink or white shiny spot.\u201d See Comment to verse 2.
\n29. If a man or woman has an affection on the head or in the beard According to dermatologists, the hair, which is rooted in layers of the skin, is directly affected by such conditions as acne, which disturb the hair follicles.
\n30. and there is thin yellow hair in it The symptomatology is generally similar to that of skin ailments, except that yellow, not white hair, is the discoloration to be watched for. Mishnah Nega\u02bfim 10:1 explains that the adjective dak indicates that the growth of the hair was stunted, that the hair was shorter than usual.
\nit is a scall As the name of a particular disease, Hebrew netek, \u201cscall,\u201d occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. Technically, it refers to the condition of the hair follicles, not of the skin. It describes the follicles of hair as being \u201ctorn\u201d from the scalp after \u201csplitting.\u201d This occurs in certain skin ailments.
\nThe noun netek derives from a verb that means \u201cto tear apart\u201d and is used, curiously enough, with reference to string, or stringy substances, similar to the hair follicles. Thus we read in Judges 16:9: \u201cas a strand of tow comes apart (yinnatek).\u201d Also, compare Ecclesiastes 4:12: \u201ca threefold cord is not readily broken (yinnatek).\u201d Some have identified the ailment called netek as acne vulgaris.
\n31. yet there is no black hair in it This verse appears to be problematic. As it stands, it does not represent the exact reverse of verse 30, which sets forth two criteria: recessed lesions and yellowish hair in the infected areas. The reverse symptoms would be no recessed lesions and no yellow hair. Verse 31, however, states: no recessed lesions and no black hair. Some modern scholars assume a scribal error and read tsahov, \u201cyellow,\u201d instead of sha\u1e25or, \u201cblack, dark,\u201d in verse 31. The Septuagint deletes one of the negatives in the verse, leaving only one relevant symptom\u2014the recessed lesions.
\nThese changes do not reflect a correct understanding of the verse. This passage is describing the progressive stages of a complication whose treatment differs somewhat from acute tsara\u02bfat because of the background condition involved. Verse 30 stipulates that if both positive symptoms appear, acute tsara\u02bfat is indicated. Verse 31 states that if only one symptom occurs\u2014the absence of black, normal hair, which is equivalent to the presence of yellow infected hair\u2014quarantine is imposed because a final determination cannot yet be made. (Recessed lesions alone are also not sufficient to indicate acute tsara\u02bfat.) At a later stage, dark hair might still grow back and the lesions remain unenlarged, a situation described in verse 37.
\n32. On the seventh day the priest shall examine the affection Three conditions must obtain for a declaration of purity at this stage: no yellow hair, no enlargement of the lesions, and no recessed lesions. To allow for clearer observation, the hair is shaved around the infected areas, leaving the infected areas themselves unshaven.
\n36. If the scall has spread on the skin Any enlargement of the lesions after fourteen days is sufficient to warrant a diagnosis of acute tsara\u02bfat. The priest need look no further for yellow hair. Hebrew yevakker means \u201cto attend, examine.\u201d
\n37. But if the scall has remained unchanged If normal-colored hair grows back in the infected area and there has been no subsequent enlargement of the lesions, the netek infection has healed.
\n38. the skin of the body streaked with white discolorations This brief section (vv. 38\u201339) deals with an ailment known as bohak, \u201cbrightness,\u201d which has been identified by some medical authorities as vitiligo. It is a rash that is not acute.
\n40. If a man loses the hair of his head and becomes bald This section (vv. 40\u201344) deals with cases where a person had already become bald prior to the outbreak of the ailment in question. The terms of reference here are interesting. Hebrew yimmaret means \u201cto be rubbed, scratched\u201d\u2014so that the hair is plucked out. The Akkadian cognate mara\u1e6du is frequently used with this meaning in medical texts. Whereas Hebrew kara\u1e25at designates the bald area at the top and back part of the head, Hebrew gaba\u1e25at refers to the front part of the head and the forehead. In verse 41, gaba\u1e25at is synonymous with pe\u02beat panav, \u201chis temples, forehead.\u201d According to 2 Chronicles 26:19, tsara\u02bfat shone on the forehead of an afflicted king. This is the very condition described in our code.
\n43. The priest shall examine him If the inflamed infection is whitish on the bald pate or on the forehead, the person is suffering from acute tsara\u02bfat. Hebrew tsaru\u02bfa means \u201cone suffering from tsara\u02bfat.\u201d An alternative form is metsora\u02bf, as in verse 42.
\n44. he has the affection on his head Hebrew be-ro\u02besh nig\u02bfo, literally \u201cat the head of his infection,\u201d represents transposition, or reverse order. The correct sense is be-nega\u02bf ro\u02besho, \u201con account of the infection on his head.\u201d
\n45. As for the person with a leprous affection Verses 45\u201346 prescribe what is to be done with one whose ailments have not healed, namely, one who suffers from the acute condition stipulated in verse 8. Up to this point, the code has set forth procedures prerequisite to a declaration of purity. Here, by contrast, is the treatment for one who is finally declared tame\u02be, \u201cimpure,\u201d due to acute tsara\u02bfat of any of the varieties discussed in verses 1\u201344.
\nhis clothes shall be rent Hebrew parum, \u201ctorn,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 10:6.
\nhis head shall be left bare Baring the head so that the hair hung loose was a customary way of shaming a person, as was covering the upper lip. A wife suspected of adultery had her head bared (Num. 5:18), and the prophet Micah (3:7) states: \u201cThe seers shall be shamed and the diviners unfounded; They shall cover their upper lips.\u201d Here, although no comparable disgrace was involved, these symbols could serve as a means of keeping others distant from the diseased person.
\nand he shall call out, \u201cUnclean!\u201d The sufferer must warn all who approach that he is impure. Compare Isaiah 52:11: \u201cTurn, turn away, touch naught unclean.\u201d
\n46. as long as the disease is on him The Hebrew reads kol yemei \u02beasher, \u201call the days while.\u2026\u201d The upshot of this provision is that an individual suffering from acute tsara\u02bfat may be permanently banished; in 2 Kings 15:5 a Judean king afflicted with acute tsara\u02bfat remained all his life in a place called beit ha-\u1e25ofshit, \u201cthe house of quarantine.\u201d
\nTSARA\u02bfAT IN FABRICS AND LEATHER (vv. 47\u201359)
\nThis section deals with tsara\u02bfat-type infections that damage fabrics and worked leather. These phenomena had the same appearance as those that attacked humans and it was probably believed that they were dangerous. Some have suggested that they were perhaps fungoid or sporoid infections. The same would be true of the mold that attacked plastered or mud-covered building stones, the subject of 14:33f. The terminology and procedures concerning fabrics and leather were deliberately modeled on the code for human diseases, even to the point of referring to the inner and outer surfaces of fabrics and leather as kara\u1e25at and gaba\u1e25at, \u201cthe back and the front\u201d of the bald head!
\nThe procedures themselves are fairly simple. On the basis of a seven-day period of observation, the priest determines whether or not the infection is tsara\u02bfat mam\u02beeret, \u201cacute, malignant tsara\u02bfat\u201d (vv. 51\u201352). In such a case, the item must be entirely burned. If it is determined that the infected, discolored areas have not become enlarged, the item is laundered and held for an additional period of observation, after which it is laundered again. If, then, the infected areas still remain, even though not enlarged, the infection is diagnosed as pe\u1e25etet, a form of acute tsara\u02bfat. In such a case, the fabric or leather must be entirely burned. Throughout the course of this procedure, every effort is made to save as much as possible of the materials by cutting away only the infected areas in the hope of containing the spread of the infection. However, the item as a whole can only be declared pure if the infection finally remits or disappears entirely.
\n47. in a cloth of wool or linen fabric Wool and linen were the two fibers from which most cloth was woven in biblical times. The two, wool and linen, were not woven into the same fabric.
\n48. in the warp or in the woof Hebrew sheti designates the vertical, drawn threads on the loom, whereas \u02bferev designates those threads that are woven in by means of the shuttle, the horizontal action.
\nor in anything made of skin Hebrew mele\u02bekhet \u02bfor means \u201cworked leather.\u201d Compare verse 51: limla\u02bekhah, \u201cfor working.\u201d
\n51. the affection is a malignant eruption Hebrew mam\u02beeret means \u201cdestructive, pricking.\u201d Compare sillon mam\u02beir, \u201ca prickly brier,\u201d in Ezekiel 28:24.
\n55. it is a fret, whether on its inner side or its outer side Hebrew pe\u1e25etet, translated \u201cfret,\u201d derives from the verb pa\u1e25at, \u201cto dig out, furrow.\u201d In biblical Hebrew, it occurs only here, but the verb is common in Late Hebrew and in Aramaic. Reference to the bodily areas, kara\u1e25at (\u201cbald head\u201d) and gaba\u1e25at (\u201cbald forehead\u201d), to describe surfaces of fabric and leather shows that the symptomatology is modeled directly on the symptoms of human disease.
\n56. after it has been washed Hebrew hukkabbes is a rare form of the verb, although its meaning is clear.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n