Text -- Leviticus 13:1-18 (NET)

Infections on the Skin

13:1 The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron: 13:2 “When someone has a swelling or a scab or a bright spot on the skin of his body that may become a diseased infection, he must be brought to Aaron the priest or one of his sons, the priests. 13:3 The priest must then examine the infection on the skin of the body, and if the hair in the infection has turned white and the infection appears to be deeper than the skin of the body, then it is a diseased infection, so when the priest examines it he must pronounce the person unclean.

A Bright Spot on the Skin

13:4 “If it is a white bright spot on the skin of his body, but it does not appear to be deeper than the skin, and the hair has not turned white, then the priest is to quarantine the person with the infection for seven days. 13:5 The priest must then examine it on the seventh day, and if, as far as he can see, the infection has stayed the same and has not spread on the skin, then the priest is to quarantine the person for another seven days. 13:6 The priest must then examine it again on the seventh day, and if the infection has faded and has not spread on the skin, then the priest is to pronounce the person clean. It is a scab, so he must wash his clothes and be clean. 13:7 If, however, the scab is spreading further on the skin after he has shown himself to the priest for his purification, then he must show himself to the priest a second time. 13:8 The priest must then examine it, and if the scab has spread on the skin, then the priest is to pronounce the person unclean. It is a disease.

A Swelling on the Skin

13:9 “When someone has a diseased infection, he must be brought to the priest. 13:10 The priest will then examine it, and if a white swelling is on the skin, it has turned the hair white, and there is raw flesh in the swelling, 13:11 it is a chronic disease on the skin of his body, so the priest is to pronounce him unclean. The priest must not merely quarantine him, for he is unclean. 13:12 If, however, the disease breaks out on the skin so that the disease covers all the skin of the person with the infection from his head to his feet, as far as the priest can see, 13:13 the priest must then examine it, and if the disease covers his whole body, he is to pronounce the person with the infection clean. He has turned all white, so he is clean. 13:14 But whenever raw flesh appears in it he will be unclean, 13:15 so the priest is to examine the raw flesh and pronounce him unclean– it is diseased. 13:16 If, however, however, the raw flesh once again turns white, then he must come to the priest. 13:17 The priest will then examine it, and if the infection has turned white, the priest is to pronounce the person with the infection clean– he is clean.

A Boil on the Skin

13:18 “When someone’s body has a boil on its skin and it heals,

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Lev 13:2

¹ tn Heb “A man, if [or when] he has….” The term for “a man, human being” (אָדָם, ’adam; see the note on Lev 1:2) in this case refers to any person among “mankind,” male or female, since either could be afflicted with infections on the skin.

² tn Some of the terms for disease or symptoms of disease in this chapter present difficulties for the translator. Most modern English versions render the Hebrew term שְׂאֵת (sÿ’et) as “swelling,” which has been retained here (see the explanation in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 189). Some have argued that “deeper (עָמֹק, ’amoq) than the skin of his body” in v. 3 means that “this sore was lower than the surrounding skin” (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:773), in which case “swelling” would be an inappropriate translation of שְׂאֵת in v. 2. Similarly, שְׂאֵת also occurs in v. 19, and then v. 20 raises the issue of whether or not it appears to be “lower (שָׁפָל, shafal) than the skin” (cf. also 14:37 for a mark on the wall of a house), which may mean that the sore sinks below the surface of the skin rather than protruding above it as a swelling would (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 76-77). Thus, one could translate here, for example, “discoloration” (so Milgrom and II שְׂאֵת “spot, blemish on the skin” in HALOT 1301 s.v. II שְׂאֵת) or “local inflammation, boil, mole” (so Levine). However, one could interpret “lower” as “deeper,” i.e., visibly extending below the surface of the skin into the deeper layers as suggested by J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 188, 192. “Swelling” often extends deeply below the surface of the skin, it is certainly a common symptom of skin diseases, and the alternation of these two terms (i.e., “deeper” and “lower”) in vv. 25-26 below shows that they both refer to the same phenomenon (see also the note on v. 20 below), so it is retained in the present translation.

³ tn The etymology and meaning of this term is unknown. It could mean “scab” (KJV, ASV, NASB) or possibly “rash” (NIV, NLT), “flaking skin,” or an “eruption” (NRSV) of some sort.

⁴ tn Heb “shiny spot” or “white spot,” but to render this term “white spot” in this chapter would create redundancy in v. 4 where the regular term for “white” occurs alongside this word for “bright spot.”

⁵ tn Heb “in the skin of his flesh” as opposed to the head or the beard (v. 29).

⁶ tn Heb “a mark [or stroke; or plague] of disease.” In some places in this context (vv. 2, 3) it could be translated “a contagious skin disease.” Although the Hebrew term צָרָעַת (tsara’at) rendered here “diseased” is translated in many English versions as “leprosy,” it does not refer to Hanson’s disease, which is the modern technical understanding of the term “leprosy” (HALOT 1057 s.v. צָרְעַת a). There has been much discussion of the proper meaning of the term and the disease(s) to which it may refer (see, e.g., J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:774-76, 816-26; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 187-89; and the literature cited by them). The further description of the actual condition in the text suggests that the regulations are concerned with any kind of infectious diseases that are observable on the surface of the skin and, in addition to that, penetrate below the surface of the skin (vv. 3-4) or spread further across the surface of the skin (vv. 5-8). It is true that, in the OT, the term “disease” is often associated specifically with white “scaly” skin diseases that resemble the wasting away of the skin after death (see Milgrom who, in fact, translates “scale disease”; cf., e.g., Exod 4:6-7 and Num 12:9-12, esp. v. 12), but here it appears to be a broader term for any skin disease that penetrates deep or spreads far on the body. Scaly skin diseases would be included in this category, but also other types. Thus, a “swelling,” “scab,” or “bright spot” on the skin might be a symptom of disease, but not necessarily so. In this sense, “diseased” is a technical term. The term “infection” can apply to any “mark” on the skin whether it belongs to the category of “disease” or not (compare and contrast v. 3, where the “infection” is not “diseased,” with v. 4, where the “infection” is found to be “diseased”).

⁷ tn Or “it shall be reported to Aaron the priest.” This alternative rendering may be better in light of the parallel use of the same expression in Lev 14:2, where the priest had to go outside the camp in order to inspect the person who had been diseased. Since the rendering “he shall be brought to Aaron the priest” might confuse matters there, this expression should be rendered “it shall be reported” both here in 13:2 (cf. also v. 9) and in 14:2. See, however, the further note on 14:2 below, where it is argued that the diseased person would still need to “be brought” to the priest even if this happened outside the camp. Most English versions retain the idea of the afflicted person being “brought” to the priest for inspection.

NET Notes: Lev 13:3

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).

NET Notes: Lev 13:4

¹ tn Heb “and if.”

² tn Heb “and deep is not its appearance from the skin”; cf. NAB “does not seem to have penetrated below the skin.”

³ tn Heb “and the priest will shut up the infection seven days.”

NET Notes: Lev 13:5

¹ tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).

² tn Heb “the infection has stood in his eyes”; ASV “if in his eyes the plague be at a stay.”

³ tn Although there is no expressed “and” at the beginning of this clause, there is in the corresponding clause of v. 6, so it should be assumed here as well.

⁴ tn Heb “a second seven days.”

NET Notes: Lev 13:6

¹ tn That is, at the end of the second set of seven days referred to at the end of v. 5, a total of fourteen days after the first appearance before the priest.

² tn Heb “and behold.”

³ tn Heb “he shall make him clean.” The verb is the Piel of טָהֵר (taher, “to be clean”). Here it is a so-called “declarative” Piel (i.e., “to declare clean”), but it also implies that the person is put into the category of being “clean” by the pronouncement itself (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 176; cf. the corresponding opposite in v. 3 above).

⁴ tn On the term “scab” see the note on v. 2 above. Cf. NAB “it was merely eczema”; NRSV “only an eruption”; NLT “only a temporary rash.”

⁵ tn Heb “and he shall wash his clothes.”

NET Notes: Lev 13:7

¹ tn Heb “And if spreading [infinitive absolute] it spreads [finite verb].” For the infinitive absolute used to highlight contrast rather than emphasis see GKC 343 §113.p.

NET Notes: Lev 13:8

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).

NET Notes: Lev 13:9

¹ tn Heb “When there is an infection of disease in a man.” The term for “a man; a human being” (אָדָם, ’adam; see the note on Lev 1:2 and cf. v. 2 above) refers to any person among “mankind,” male or female. For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above.

NET Notes: Lev 13:10

¹ 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).

² tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).

³ tn Heb “and rawness [i.e., something living] of living flesh is in the swelling”; KJV, NASB, NRSV “quick raw flesh.”

NET Notes: Lev 13:11

¹ tn The term rendered here “chronic” is a Niphal participle meaning “grown old” (HALOT 448 s.v. II ישׁן nif.2). The idea is that this is an old enduring skin disease that keeps on developing or recurring.

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

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

⁴ tn Heb “he”; the referent (the priest) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁵ sn Instead of just the normal quarantine isolation, this condition calls for the more drastic and enduring response stated in Lev 13:45-46. Raw flesh, of course, sometimes oozes blood to one degree or another, and blood flows are by nature impure (see, e.g., Lev 12 and 15; cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 191).

NET Notes: Lev 13:12

¹ tn Heb “And if spreading [infinitive absolute] it spreads out [finite verb].” For the infinitive absolute used to highlight contrast rather than emphasis see GKC 343 §113.p.

² tn Heb “all the skin of the infection,” but see v. 4 above.

³ tn Heb “to all the appearance of the eyes of the priest.”

NET Notes: Lev 13:13

¹ 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).

² tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).

³ tn Heb “he shall pronounce the infection clean,” but see v. 4 above. Also, this is another use of the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher; cf. the note on v. 6 above).

⁴ tn Heb “all of him has turned white, and he is clean.”

NET Notes: Lev 13:14

¹ tn Heb “and in the day of there appears in it living flesh.” Some English versions render this as “open sores” (cf. NCV, TEV, NLT).

NET Notes: Lev 13:15

¹ tn Heb “and the priest shall see the living flesh.”

² tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’; cf. the note on v. 3 above).

NET Notes: Lev 13:16

¹ tn Heb “Or if/when.”

² tn Heb “the living flesh returns and is turned/changed to white.” The Hebrew verb “returns” is שׁוּב (shuv), which often functions adverbially when combined with a second verb as it is here (cf. “and is turned”) and, in such cases, is usually rendered “again” (see, e.g., GKC 386-87 §120.g). Another suggestion is that here שׁוּב means “to recede” (cf., e.g., 2 Kgs 20:9), so one could translate “the raw flesh recedes and turns white.” This would mean that the new “white” skin “has grown over” the raw flesh (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 79).

NET Notes: Lev 13:17

¹ tn Heb “and the priest shall see it.”

² tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).

³ 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).

NET Notes: Lev 13:18

¹ tc Heb (MT) reads, “And flesh if/when there is in it, in its skin, a boil.” Smr has only “in it,” not “in its skin,” and a few medieval Hebrew mss as well as the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate have only “in its skin” (cf. v. 24 below), not “in it.” It does not effect the meaning of the verse, but one is tempted to suggest that “in it” (בוֹ, vo) was added in error as a partial dittography from the beginning of “in its skin” (בְעֹרוֹ, vÿ’oro).