² tn In this context the Niphal of the Hebrew root כָּבֵד (kaved) can mean “to be honored” (e.g., NASB and NIV here), “be glorified” (ASV, NRSV and NLT here), or “glorify oneself, show one’s glory” (cf. NAB; e.g., specifically in this verse HALOT 455 s.v. כבדnif.3; J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:595, 603-4; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 126, 134). Comparing this clause with the previous one (see the note above), the point may be that when the Lord shows himself to be holy as he has done in Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">10:1-2, this results in him being honored (i.e., reverenced, feared, treated with respect) among the people. This suggests the passive rendering. It is possible, however, that one should use the reflexive rendering here as in the previous clause. If so, the passage means that the Lord showed both his holiness and his glory in one outbreak against Nadab and Abihu.

³ tn The MT reads literally, “And the priest shall command and he shall take.” Clearly, the second verb (“and he shall take”) contains the thrust of the priest’s command, which suggests the translation “that he take” (cf. also v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">5a). Since the priest issues the command here, he cannot be the subject of the second verb because he cannot be commanding himself to “take” up these ritual materials. Moreover, since the ritual is being performed “for the one being cleansed,” the antecedent of the pronoun “he” cannot refer to him. The LXX, Smr, and Syriac versions have the third person plural here and in v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">5a, which corresponds to other combinations with the verb וְצִוָּה (vÿtsivvah) “and he (the priest) shall command” in this context (see Lev 13:54; 14:36, 40). This suggests an impersonal (i.e., “someone shall take” and “someone shall slaughter,” respectively) or perhaps even passive rendering of the verbs in Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">14:4, 5 (i.e., “there shall be taken” and “there shall be slaughtered,” respectively). The latter option has been chosen here.

³ sn The reddish color of cedar wood and the crimson colored fabric called for in v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">4 (see the note there, esp. the association with the color of blood) as well as the priestly commands to bring “two live” birds (v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">4a), to slaughter one of them “over fresh water” (literally “living water,” v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">5b), and the subsequent ritual with the (second) “live” bird (vv. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">6-7) combine to communicate the concept of “life” and “being alive” in this passage. This contrasts with the fear of death associated with the serious skin diseases in view here (see, e.g., Aaron’s description of Miriam’s skin disease in Num 12:12, “Do not let her be like the dead one when it goes out from its mother’s womb and its flesh half eaten away”). Since the slaughtered bird here is not sacrificed at the altar and is not designated as an expiatory “sin offering,” this ritual procedure probably symbolizes the renewed life of the diseased person and displays it publicly for all to see. It is preparatory to the expiatory rituals that will follow (vv. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">10-20, esp. vv. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">18-20), but is not itself expiatory. Thus, although there are important similarities between the bird ritual here, the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:20-22), and the red heifer for cleansing from corpse contamination (Num 19), this bird ritual is different in that the latter two constitute “sin offerings” (Lev 16:5, 8-10; Num 19:9, 17). Neither of the birds in Lev 14:4-7 is designated or treated as a “sin offering.” Nevertheless, the very nature of the live bird ritual itself and its obvious similarity to the scapegoat ritual suggests that the patient’s disease has been removed far away so that he or she is free from its effects both personally and communally.

¹ tn “When” here translates the MT’s כִּי (ki, “if, when”), which regularly introduces main clauses in legislative contexts (see, e.g., Lev 2:1, 4; 4:2, etc.) in contrast to אִם (’im, “if”), which usually introduces subordinate sections (see, e.g., Lev 1:3, 10, 14; 2:5, 7, 14; 4:3, 13, etc.; cf. כִּי in Exod 21:2 and 7 as opposed to אִם in vv. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11).

¹ tc A few medieval Hebrew mss, Smr, LXX, Syriac, and Tg. Onq. have plural “priests” here (cf. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">1:5, 8) rather than the MT singular “priest” (cf. NAB). The singular “priest” would mean (1) Aaron, the (high) priest, or (2) the officiating priest, as in Lev 1:9 (cf. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">6:10 [3 HT], etc.). “The sons of Aaron” is probably a textual corruption caused by conflation with Lev 1:5, 8 (cf. the remarks in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 13).

¹ sn The “grain offering” ( מִנְחָה[minkhah]; here קָרְבַּן מִנְחָה, [qorbban minkhah], “an offering of a grain offering”) generally accompanied a burnt or peace offering to supplement the meat with bread (the libation provided the drink; cf. Num 15:1-10), thus completing the food “gift” to the Lord. It made atonement (see the note on Lev 1:4) along with the burnt offering (e.g., Lev 14:20) or alone as a sin offering for the poor (Lev 5:11-13).

¹ tn Heb “and he”; the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. The syntax is strange here and might suggest that it was the offerer who scooped out a handful of the grain offering for the memorial portion (G. J. Wenham, Leviticus [NICOT], 66), but based on v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">9 below it should be understood that it was the priest who performed this act (see, e.g., NRSV “After taking from it a handful of the choice flour and oil…the priest shall…”; see also J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:177, 181 and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 30).

¹ tn The translation of this whole section of the clause is difficult. Theoretically, it could describe one, two, or three different ways of preparing first ripe grain offerings (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 27). The translation here takes it as a description of only one kind of prepared grain. This is suggested by the fact that v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">16 uses only one term “crushed bits” (גֶּרֶשׂ, geres) to refer back to the grain as it is prepared in v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">14 (a more technical translation is “groats”; see J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:178, 194). Cf. NAB “fresh grits of new ears of grain”; NRSV “coarse new grain from fresh ears.”

¹ tn Heb “and if his hand does not reach enough of a flock animal” (see the note on v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">11 below). The term translated “animal from the flock” (שֶׂה, seh) is often translated “lamb” (e.g., KJV, NASB, NIV, NCV) or “sheep” (e.g., NRSV, TEV, NLT), but it clearly includes either a sheep or a goat here (cf. v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">6), referring to the smaller pasture animals as opposed to the larger ones (i.e., cattle; cf. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">4:3). Some English versions use the more generic “animal” (e.g., NAB, CEV).

³ sn Heb “from the holy things of the Lord.” The Hebrew expression here has the same structure as Lev 4:2, “from any of the commandments of the Lord.” The latter introduces the sin offering regulations and the former the guilt offering regulations. The sin offering deals with violations of “any of the commandments,” whereas the guilt offering focuses specifically on violations of regulations regarding “holy things” (i.e., things that have been consecrated to the Lord; see the full discussion in J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:320-27).

⁵ tn Heb “in your valuation, silver of shekels, in the shekel of the sanctuary.” The translation offered here suggests that, instead of a ram, the guilt offering could be presented in the form of money (see, e.g., NRSV; J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:326-27). Others still maintain the view that it refers to the value of the ram that was offered (see, e.g., NIV “of the proper value in silver, according to the sanctuary shekel”; also NAB, NLT; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 72-73, 81).

² tn Heb “broken bits [?] of a grain offering of pieces,” but the meaning of the Hebrew term rendered here “broken bits” (תֻּפִינֵי, tufiney) is quite uncertain. Some take it from the Hebrew verb “to break up, to crumble” (פַּת [pat]; e.g., the Syriac, NAB, NIV, NLT “broken” pieces) and others from “to bake” (אָפַה, ’afah; e.g., NRSV “baked pieces”). For a good summary of other proposed options, see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 90. Compare Lev 2:5-6 for the general regulations regarding this manner of grain offering. Similar but less problematic terminology is used there.

² tn Heb “in the day of he presented them to serve as priests to the Lord.” The grammar here is relatively unusual. First, the verb “presented” appears to be in the perfect rather than the infinitive (but see GKC 531), the latter being normal in such temporal expressions. Second, the active verb form appears to be used as a passive plural (“they were presented”). However, if it is translated active and singular then Moses would be the subject: “on the day he [Moses] offered them [Aaron and his sons].”

¹ sn The Hebrew term translated “law” (תוֹרָה [torah]) occurs up to this point in the book only in Lev 6:9 [Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">6:2 HT], 14 [7 HT], 25 [18 HT], 7:1, 7, 11, and here in Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">7:37. This suggests that Lev 7:37-38 is a summary of only this section of the book (i.e., Lev 6:8 [Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">6:1 HT]-Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">7:36), not all of Lev 1-7.

² tn Heb “and he waved.” The subject of the verb “he waved” is Aaron, but Aaron’s sons also performed the action (see “Aaron and his sons” just previously). See the similar shifts from Moses to Aaron as the subject of the action above (vv. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">15, 16, 19, 20, 23), and esp. the note on Lev 8:15. In the present translation this is rendered as an adjectival clause (“who waved”) to indicate that the referent is not Moses but Aaron and his sons. Cf. CEV “who lifted it up”; NAB “whom he had wave” (with “he” referring to Moses here).

¹ sn The latter part of the verse (“in addition to the morning burnt offering”) refers to the complex of morning (and evening) burnt and grain offerings that was the daily regulation for the tabernacle from the time of its erection (Exod 40:29). The regulations for it were appended to the end of the section of priestly consecration regulations in Exod 29 (see Exod 29:38-40) precisely because they were to be maintained throughout the priestly consecration period and beyond (Lev 8:33-36). Thus, the morning burnt and grain offerings would already have been placed on the altar before the inaugural burnt and grain offerings referred to here.

¹ tn Heb “a perpetual statute for your generations”; NAB “a perpetual ordinance”; NRSV “a statute forever”; NLT “a permanent law.” The Hebrew grammar here suggests that the last portion of v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">9 functions as both a conclusion to v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">9 and an introduction to vv. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">10-11. It is a pivot clause, as it were. Thus, it was a “perpetual statute” to not drink alcoholic beverages when ministering in the tabernacle, but it was also a “perpetual statue” to distinguish between holy and profane and unclean and clean (v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">10) as well as to teach the children of Israel all such statutes (v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">11).

² tn Heb “you shall humble your souls.” The verb “to humble” here refers to various forms of self-denial, including but not limited to fasting (cf. Ps 35:13 and Isa 58:3, 10). The Mishnah (m. Yoma 8:1) lists abstentions from food and drink, bathing, using oil as an unguent to moisten the skin, wearing leather sandals, and sexual intercourse (cf. 2 Sam 12:16-17, 20; see the remarks in J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:1054; B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 109; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 242).

² tn Heb “for the soul/life (נֶפֶשׁ, nefesh) of the flesh, it is in the blood” (cf. the note of v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">10 above and v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">14 below). Although most modern English versions begin a new sentence in v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">11, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood” (see, e.g., NJPS, NASB, NIV, NRSV), the כִּי (ki, “for, because”) at the beginning of the verse suggests continuation from v. Kir+Heres+AND+book%3A3&tab=notes" ver="">10, as the rendering here indicates (see, e.g., NEB, NLT; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 261; and G. J. Wenham, Leviticus [NICOT], 239).

¹ sn The Hebrew term translated “regulation” (מִשְׁפָּט, mishpat) refers to the set of regulations about to be set forth in the following chapters (cf. Lev 19:37; 20:22; 25:18; 26:46). Note especially the thematic and formulaic relationships between the introduction here in Lev 18:1-5 and the paraenesis in Lev 20:22-26, both of which refer explicitly to the corrupt nations and the need to separate from them by keeping the Lord’s regulations.