translation_id: net-engnet

book_id: NUM

label: NET translator note

text: Heb “speak to.”


text: The line literally reads, “speak to the Israelites that [and] they bring [will bring].” The imperfect [or jussive] is subordinated to the imperative either as a purpose clause, or as the object of the instruction – speak to them that they bring, or tell them to bring.


text: The color is designated as red, although the actual color would be a tanned red-brown color for the animal (see the usage in Isa 1:18 and Song 5:10 ). The reddish color suggested the blood of ritual purification; see J. Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow (),” VT 31 (1981): 62-72.


text: Heb “wherein there is no defect.”


label: NET textual note

text: The clause is a little ambiguous. It reads “and he shall slaughter it before him.” It sounds as if someone else will kill the heifer in the priest’s presence. Since no one is named as the subject, it may be translated as a passive. Some commentators simply interpret that Eleazar was to kill the animal personally, but that is a little forced for “before him.” The Greek text gives a third person plural sense to the verb; the Vulgate follows that reading.


text: The verb is the perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive; it functions here as the equivalent of the imperfect of instruction.


text: Again, the verb has no expressed subject, and so is given a passive translation.


text: The imperfect tense is third masculine singular, and so again the verb is to be made passive.


text: The sequence continues with the perfect tense and vav ( ו ) consecutive.


text: Heb “his flesh.”


text: This is the imperfect of permission.


text: Heb “it will be.”


text: The expression לְמֵי נִדָּה ( lÿme niddah ) is “for waters of impurity.” The genitive must designate the purpose of the waters – they are for cases of impurity, and so serve for cleansing or purifying, thus “water of purification.” The word “impurity” can also mean “abhorrent” because it refers to so many kinds of impurities. It is also called a purification offering; Milgrom notes that this is fitting because the sacrificial ritual involved transfers impurity from the purified to the purifier (pp. 62-72).


text: The form is the participle with the article functioning as a substantive: “the one who touches.”


text: Heb “the dead.”


text: The expression is full: לְכָל־נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם ( lÿkhol-nefesh ’ adam ) – of any life of a man, i.e., of any person.


text: The verb is a perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive; it follows only the participle used as the subject, but since the case is hypothetical and therefore future, this picks up the future time. The adjective “ceremonially” is supplied in the translation as a clarification.


text: The verb is the Hitpael of חָטָא ( khata ’), a verb that normally means “to sin.” But the Piel idea in many places is “to cleanse; to purify.” This may be explained as a privative use (“to un-sin” someone, meaning cleanse) or denominative (“make a sin offering for someone”). It is surely connected to the purification offering, and so a sense of purify is what is wanted here.


text: The word order gives the classification and then the condition: “a man, when he dies….”


text: The expression for “in the open field” is literally “upon the face of the field” ( עַל־פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה , ’ al pÿne hassadeh ). This ruling is in contrast now to what was contacted in the tent.


text: Heb “a dead body”; but in contrast to the person killed with a sword, this must refer to someone who died of natural causes.


text: The verb is the perfect tense, third masculine plural, with a vav ( ו ) consecutive. The verb may be worded as a passive, “ashes must be taken,” but that may be too awkward for this sentence. It may be best to render it with a generic “you” to fit the instruction of the text.


text: The word “heifer” is not in the Hebrew text, but it is implied.


text: Here too the verb is the perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive; rather than make this passive, it is here left as a direct instruction to follow the preceding one. For the use of the verb נָתַן ( natan ) in the sense of “pour,” see S. C. Reif, “A Note on a Neglected Connotation of ntn ,” VT 20 (1970): 114-16.


text: The expression is literally “living water.” Living water is the fresh, flowing spring water that is clear, life-giving, and not the collected pools of stagnant or dirty water.


text: The construction uses a simple Piel of חָטָא ( khata ’, “to purify”) with a pronominal suffix – “he shall purify him.” Some commentators take this to mean that after he sprinkles the unclean then he must purify himself. But that would not be the most natural way to read this form.


text: The form has the conjunction with it: וּמַזֵּה ( umazzeh ). The conjunction subordinates the following as the special law. It could literally be translated “and this shall be…that the one who sprinkles.”