Imamat 11:4

11:4 However, you must not eat these ¹  from among those that chew the cud and have divided hooves: The camel is unclean to you ²  because it chews the cud ³  even though its hoof is not divided. ⁴ 

Imamat 11:24

Carcass Uncleanness

11:24 “‘By these ⁵  you defile yourselves; anyone who touches their carcass will be unclean until the evening,

Imamat 13:11

13:11 it is a chronic ⁶  disease on the skin of his body, ⁷  so the priest is to pronounce him unclean. ⁸  The priest ⁹  must not merely quarantine him, for he is unclean. ¹⁰ 

Imamat 13:13

13:13 the priest must then examine it, ¹¹  and if ¹²  the disease covers his whole body, he is to pronounce the person with the infection clean. ¹³  He has turned all white, so he is clean. ¹⁴ 

Imamat 13:27-28

13:27 The priest must then examine it on the seventh day, and if it is spreading further ¹⁵  on the skin, then the priest is to pronounce him unclean. It is a diseased infection. ¹⁶  13:28 But if the bright spot stays in its place, has not spread on the skin, ¹⁷  and it has faded, then it is the swelling of the burn, so the priest is to pronounce him clean, ¹⁸  because it is the scar of the burn.

Imamat 13:30

13:30 the priest is to examine the infection, ¹⁹  and if ²⁰  it appears to be deeper than the skin ²¹  and the hair in it is reddish yellow and thin, then the priest is to pronounce the person unclean. ²²  It is scall, ²³  a disease of the head or the beard. ²⁴ 

Imamat 13:37

13:37 If, as far as the priest can see, the scall has stayed the same ²⁵  and black hair has sprouted in it, the scall has been healed; the person is clean. So the priest is to pronounce him clean. ²⁶ 

Imamat 14:7

14:7 and sprinkle it seven times on the one being cleansed ²⁷  from the disease, pronounce him clean, ²⁸  and send the live bird away over the open countryside. ²⁹ 

Imamat 14:48

14:48 “If, however, the priest enters ³⁰  and examines it, and the ³¹  infection has not spread in the house after the house has been replastered, then the priest is to pronounce the house clean because the infection has been healed.

Imamat 24:11

24:11 The Israelite woman’s son misused the Name and cursed, ³²  so they brought him to Moses. (Now his mother’s name was Shelomith daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.)

[11:4]  ¹ tn Heb “this,” but as a collective plural (see the following context).

[11:4]  ² sn Regarding “clean” versus “unclean,” see the note on Lev 10:10.

[11:4]  ³ tn Heb “because a chewer of the cud it is” (see also vv. 5 and 6).

[11:4]  ⁴ tn Heb “and hoof there is not dividing” (see also vv. 5 and 6).

[11:24]  ⁵ tn Heb “and to these.”

[13:11]  ⁶ 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.

[13:11]  ⁷ tn Heb “in the skin of his flesh” as opposed to the head or the beard (v. 29; cf. v. 2 above).

[13:11]  ⁸ tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’, cf. the note on v. 3 above).

[13:11]  ⁹ tn Heb “he”; the referent (the priest) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[13:11]  ¹⁰ 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).

[13:13]  ¹¹ 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).

[13:13]  ¹² tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).

[13:13]  ¹³ 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).

[13:13]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “all of him has turned white, and he is clean.”

[13:27]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “is indeed spreading.”

[13:27]  ¹⁶ tn For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above.

[13:28]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “and if under it the bright spot stands, it has not spread in the skin.”

[13:28]  ¹⁸ tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher; cf. the note on v. 6 above).

[13:30]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “and the priest shall see the infection.”

[13:30]  ²⁰ tn Heb “and behold.”

[13:30]  ²¹ tn Heb “its appearance is deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן, min, “deeper than”) the skin.”

[13:30]  ²² tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָמֵא (tame’; cf. the note on v. 3 above).

[13:30]  ²³ tn The exact identification of this disease is unknown. Cf. KJV “dry scall”; NASB “a scale”; NIV, NCV, NRSV “an itch”; NLT “a contagious skin disease.” For a discussion of “scall” disease in the hair, which is a crusty scabby disease of the skin under the hair that also affects the hair itself, see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 192-93, and J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:793-94. The Hebrew word rendered “scall” (נֶתֶק, neteq) is related to a verb meaning “to tear; to tear out; to tear apart.” It may derive from the scratching and/or the tearing out of the hair or the scales of the skin in response to the itching sensation caused by the disease.

[13:30]  ²⁴ tn Heb “It is scall. It is the disease of the head or the beard.”

[13:37]  ²⁵ tn Heb “and if in his eyes the infection has stood.”

[13:37]  ²⁶ tn This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher, cf. the note on v. 6 above).

[14:7]  ²⁷ tn Heb “the one cleansing himself” (i.e., Hitpael participle of טָהֵר [taher, “to be clean”]).

[14:7]  ²⁸ tn Heb “and he shall make him clean.” The verb is the Piel of טָהֵר (taher, “to be clean”), here used as a so-called “declarative” Piel (i.e., “to declare clean”; cf. 13:6, etc.).

[14:7]  ²⁹ sn The reddish color of cedar wood and the crimson colored fabric called for in v. 4 (see the note there, esp. the association with the color of blood) as well as the priestly commands to bring “two live” birds (v. 4a), to slaughter one of them “over fresh water” (literally “living water,” v. 5b), and the subsequent ritual with the (second) “live” bird (vv. 6-7) combine to communicate the concept of “life” and “being alive” in this passage. This contrasts with the fear of death associated with the serious skin diseases in view here (see, e.g., Aaron’s description of Miriam’s skin disease in Num 12:12, “Do not let her be like the dead one when it goes out from its mother’s womb and its flesh half eaten away”). Since the slaughtered bird here is not sacrificed at the altar and is not designated as an expiatory “sin offering,” this ritual procedure probably symbolizes the renewed life of the diseased person and displays it publicly for all to see. It is preparatory to the expiatory rituals that will follow (vv. 10-20, esp. vv. 18-20), but is not itself expiatory. Thus, although there are important similarities between the bird ritual here, the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:20-22), and the red heifer for cleansing from corpse contamination (Num 19), this bird ritual is different in that the latter two constitute “sin offerings” (Lev 16:5, 8-10; Num 19:9, 17). Neither of the birds in Lev 14:4-7 is designated or treated as a “sin offering.” Nevertheless, the very nature of the live bird ritual itself and its obvious similarity to the scapegoat ritual suggests that the patient’s disease has been removed far away so that he or she is free from its effects both personally and communally.

[14:48]  ³⁰ tn Heb “And if the priest entering [infinitive absolute] enters [finite verb]” For the infinitive absolute used to highlight contrast rather than emphasis see GKC 343 §113.p.

[14:48]  ³¹ tn Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “and the mark has not indeed spread.”

[24:11]  ³² tn The verb rendered “misused” means literally “to bore through, to pierce” (HALOT 719 s.v. נקב qal); it is from נָקַב (naqav), not קָבַב (qavav; see the participial form in v. 16a). Its exact meaning here is uncertain. The two verbs together may form a hendiadys, “he pronounced by cursing blasphemously” (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 166), the idea being one of the following: (1) he pronounced the name “Yahweh” in a way or with words that amounted to “some sort of verbal aggression against Yahweh himself” (E. S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus [OTL], 362), (2) he pronounced a curse against the man using the name “Yahweh” (N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers [NCBC], 110; G. J. Wenham, Leviticus [NICOT], 311), or (3) he pronounced the name “Yahweh” and thereby blasphemed, since the “Name” was never to be pronounced (a standard Jewish explanation). In one way or another, the offense surely violated Exod 20:7, one of the ten commandments, and the same verb for cursing is used explicitly in Exod 22:28 (27 HT) prohibition against “cursing” God. For a full discussion of these and related options for interpreting this verse see P. J. Budd, Leviticus (NCBC), 335-36; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 408-9; and Levine, 166.