Imamat 1:9

1:9 Finally, the one presenting the offering ¹  must wash its entrails and its legs in water and the priest must offer all of it up in smoke on the altar ²  – it is ³  a burnt offering, a gift ⁴  of a soothing aroma to the Lord.

Imamat 1:13

1:13 Then the one presenting the offering must wash the entrails and the legs in water, and the priest must present all of it and offer it up in smoke on the altar – it is a burnt offering, a gift of a soothing aroma to the Lord.

Imamat 12:5

12:5 If she bears a female child, she will be impure fourteen days as during her menstrual flow, and she will remain sixty-six days in ⁵  blood purity. ⁶ 

Imamat 13:56

13:56 But if the priest has examined it and ⁷  the infection has faded after it has been washed, he is to tear it out of ⁸  the garment or the leather or the warp or the woof.

Imamat 13:58

13:58 But the garment or the warp or the woof or any article of leather which you wash and infection disappears from it ⁹  is to be washed a second time and it will be clean.”

Imamat 16:10

16:10 but the goat which has been designated by lot for Azazel is to be stood alive ¹⁰  before the Lord to make atonement on it by sending it away to Azazel into the wilderness. ¹¹ 

[1:9]  ¹ tn Heb “Finally, he”; the referent (the offerer) has been specified in the translation for clarity. Once again, the MT assigns the preparation of the offering (here the entrails and legs) to the offerer because it did not bring him into direct contact with the altar, but reserves the actual placing of the sacrifice on the altar for the officiating priest (cf. the notes on vv. 5a and 6a).

[1:9]  ² tn Heb “toward the altar,” but the so-called locative ה (hey) attached to the word for “altar” can indicate the place where something is or happens (GKC 250 §90.d and GKC 373-74 §118.g; cf. also J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:161). This is a standard way of expressing “on/at the altar” with the verb “to offer up in smoke” (Hiphil of קָטַר [qatar]; cf. also Exod 29:13, 18, 25; Lev 1:9, 13, 15, 17; 2:2, etc.).

[1:9]  ³ tc A few Hebrew mss and possibly the Leningrad B19a ms itself (the basis of the BHS Hebrew text of the MT), under an apparent erasure, plus Smr, LXX, Syriac, and Tg. Ps.-J. suggest that Hebrew הוּא (hu’, translated as “it is”) should be added here as in vv. 13 and 17. Whether or not the text should be changed, the meaning is the same as in vv. 13 and 17, so it has been included in the translation here.

[1:9]  ⁴ sn The standard English translation of “gift” (אִשֶּׁה, ’isheh) is “an offering [made] by fire” (cf. KJV, ASV). It is based on a supposed etymological relationship to the Hebrew word for “fire” (אֵשׁ, ’esh) and is still maintained in many versions (e.g., NIV, RSV, NRSV, NLT; B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 7-8). For various reasons, including the fact that some offerings referred to by this term are not burned on the altar (see, e.g., Lev 24:9), it is probably better to understand the term to mean “gift” (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 22) or “food gift” (“food offering” in NEB and TEV; J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:161-62). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:540-49 for a complete discussion.

[12:5]  ⁵ tn Heb “on purity blood.” The preposition here is עַל (’al) rather than בְּ (bÿ, as it is in the middle of v. 4), but no doubt the same meaning is intended.

[12:5]  ⁶ tn For clarification of the translation here, see the notes on vv. 2-4 above.

[12:5]  sn The doubling of the time after the birth of a female child is puzzling (see the remarks in J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:750-51; and G. J. Wenham, Leviticus [NICOT], 188). Some have argued, for example, that it derives from the relative status of the sexes, or a supposed longer blood flow for the birth of a woman, or even to compensate for the future menstrual periods of the female just born. Perhaps there is a better explanation. First, a male child must be circumcised on the eighth day, so the impurity of the mother could not last beyond the first seven days lest it interfere with the circumcision rite. A female child, of course, was not circumcised, so the impurity of the mother would not interfere and the length of the impure time could be extended further. Second, it would be natural to expect that the increased severity of the blood flow after childbirth, as compared to that of a woman’s menstrual period, would call for a longer period of impurity than the normal seven days of the menstrual period impurity (compare Lev 15:19 with 15:25-30). Third, this suggests that the fourteen day impurity period for the female child would have been more appropriate, and the impurity period for the birth of a male child had to be shortened. Fourth, not only the principle of multiples of seven but also multiples of forty applies to this reckoning. Since the woman’s blood discharge after bearing a child continues for more than seven days, her discharge keeps her from contact with sacred things for a longer period of time in order to avoid contaminating the tabernacle (note Lev 15:31). This ended up totaling forty days for the birth of a male child (seven plus thirty-three) and a corresponding doubling of the second set of days for the woman (fourteen plus sixty-six). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:368-70. The fact that the offerings were the same for either a male or a female infant (vv. 6-8) suggests that the other differences in the regulations are not due to the notion that a male child had greater intrinsic value than a female child (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 169).

[13:56]  ⁷ tn Heb “And if the priest saw and behold….”

[13:56]  ⁸ tn Heb “and he shall tear it from.”

[13:58]  ⁹ tn Heb “and the infection turns aside from them.”

[16:10]  ¹⁰ tn The LXX has “he shall stand it” (cf. v. 7).

[16:10]  ¹¹ tn Heb “to make atonement on it to send it away to Azazel toward the wilderness.”