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. 5 a and 6a).


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.).


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.


Heb “And if from the flock is his offering, from the sheep or from the goats, for a burnt offering.” Here “flock” specifies the broad category, with “sheep or goats” giving specific examples.


Heb “Then he”; the referent (the offerer) has been specified in the translation for clarity (so also in v. 13 ).


Heb “from the [category] ‘bird.’”


Heb “from the sons of the pigeon,” referring either to “young pigeons” (cf. KJV, NASB, NIV, NLT) or “various species of pigeon” (contrast J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:168, with J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 14).


The action here seems to involve both a twisting action, breaking the neck of the bird and severing its vertebrae, as well as pinching or nipping the skin to sever the head from the main body. Cf. NASB, NRSV “wring off its head”; NAB “snap its head loose”; NLT “twist off its head.”


Many English versions have “it” here, referring to the head of the bird, which the priest immediately tossed on the altar fire. However, “it” could be misunderstood to refer to the bird’s body, so “head” is repeated in the present translation for clarity. As the following lines show, certain things needed to be done to the body of the bird before it could be placed on the altar.


Heb “Then he”; the referent (apparently still the priest) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


This translation (“remove its entrails by [cutting off] its tail feathers”) is based on the discussion in J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:169-71, although he translates, “remove its crissum by its feathers.” Others possibilities include “its crop with its contents” ( Tg. Onq. , cf. NIV, NRSV; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 23) or “its crop with its feathers” (LXX, NASB, RSV; “crop” refers to the enlarged part of a bird’s gullet that serves a pouch for the preliminary maceration of food).


The pronoun “them” here is feminine singular in Hebrew and refers collectively to the entrails and tail wing which have been removed.


Heb “he shall not divide it.” Several Hebrew mss , Smr, LXX, and Syriac have a vav on the negative, yielding the translation, “ but he shall not divide it into two parts.” Cf. NIV “not severing it completely” (NRSV similar).


The Hebrew term for “choice wheat flour” ( סֹלֶת , selet ) is often translated “fine flour” (cf. KJV, NAB, NIV, NCV), but it refers specifically to wheat as opposed to barley (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 10). Moreover, the translation “flour” might be problematic, since the Hebrew term may designate the “grits” rather than the more finely ground “flour” (see J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:179 as opposed to Levine, 10, and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 30).


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. 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).


The words “it is” have been supplied. See the notes on Lev 1:9 and 2:3 . There is no text critical problem here, but the syntax suggests the same translation.


Heb “…is to Aaron and to his sons.” The preposition “to” ( לְ , lamed ) indicates ownership. Cf. NAB, NASB, NIV and other English versions.


The words “it is” ( הוּא , hu ’) are not in the MT, but are supplied for the sake of translation into English. The Syriac also for translational reasons adds it between “most holy” and “from the gifts” (cf. 1:13, 17 ).


Heb “holy of holies”; KJV, NASB “a thing most holy.”


The insertion of the words “it must be made of” is justified by the context and the expressed words “it shall be made of” in vv. 7 and 8 below.


Heb “and.” Here the conjunction vav ( ו ) has an alternative sense (“or”).


The Hebrew word מְשֻׁחִים ( mÿshukhim ) translated here as “smeared” is often translated “anointed” in other contexts. Cf. TEV “brushed with olive oil” (CEV similar).


There is no vav ( ו , “and”) in the MT at the beginning of v. 6 and the verb is pointed as an infinite absolute. The present translation has rendered it as an imperative (see GKC 346 §113. bb ) and, therefore, the same for the following vav consecutive perfect verb (cf. NIV “Crumble it and pour oil on it”; cf. also NRSV, NEB, NLT, and J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:185, but note the objections to this rendering in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 26). The LXX seems to suggest adding a vav (“and”) and pointing the verb as a consecutive perfect, which yields “and you shall break it in pieces” (cf. the BHS textual note; Hartley, 26, prefers the LXX rendering).


Heb “a grain offering of a pan”; cf. KJV “fryingpan”; NAB “pot”; CEV “pan with a lid on it.”


There are several person, gender, and voice verb problems in this verse. First, the MT has “And you shall bring the grain offering,” but the LXX and Qumran have “he” rather than “you” (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:185). Second, the MT has “which shall be made” (i.e., the 3rd person masculine Niphal passive verb which, in fact, does not agree with its feminine subject, מִנְחָה , minkhah , “grain offering”), while the LXX has “which he shall make” (3rd person Qal), thus agreeing with the LXX 3rd person verb at the beginning of the verse (see above). Third, the MT has a 3rd person vav consecutive verb “and he shall present it to the priest,” which agrees with the LXX but is not internally consistent with the 2nd person verb at the beginning of the verse in the MT. The BHS editors conjecture that the latter might be repointed to an imperative verb yielding “present it to the priest.” This would require no change of consonants and corresponds to the person of the first verb in the MT. This solution has been tentatively accepted here (cf. also J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 26-27), even though it neither resolves the gender problem of the second verb nor fits the general grammatical pattern of the chapter in the MT.


The Hebrew verb הֵרִים ( herim , “to take up”; cf. NAB “lift”) is commonly used for setting aside portions of an offering (see, e.g., Lev 4:8-10 and R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 4:335-36). A number of English versions employ the more normal English idiom “take out” here (e.g., NIV, NCV); cf. NRSV “remove.”


The words “it is” ( הוּא , hu ’) both here and in vv. 10 and 16 are not in the MT, but are assumed. (cf. vv. 2 b and 3b and the notes there).


See the note on “it is” in v. 9 b.


Heb “Every grain offering which you offer to the Lord must not be made leavened.” The noun “leaven” is traditional in English versions (cf. KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV), but “yeast” is more commonly used today.


A few Hebrew mss , Smr, LXX, and Tg. Ps.-J. have the verb “present” rather than “offer up in smoke,” but the MT is clearly correct. One could indeed present leavened and honey sweetened offerings as first fruit offerings, which were not burned on the altar (see v. 12 and the note there), but they could not be offered up in fire on the altar. Cf. the TEV’s ambiguous “you must never use yeast or honey in food offered to the Lord.” tn Heb “for all leaven and all honey you must not offer up in smoke from it a gift to the Lord .”


Heb “from upon your grain offering.”


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. 16 uses only one term “crushed bits” ( גֶּרֶשׂ , geres ) to refer back to the grain as it is prepared in v. 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.”


See the note on “it is” in 2:9 b.


Heb “if a male if a female, perfect he shall present it before the Lord .” The “or” in the present translation (and most other English versions) is not present in the Hebrew text here, but see v. 6 below.


See the remarks on Lev 1:3-5 above for some of the details of translation here.


Heb “Then he”; the referent (the person presenting the offering) has been specified in the translation for clarity (cf. the note on Lev 1:5 ).


Heb “and all the fat on the entrails.” The fat layer that covers the entrails as a whole (i.e., “that covers the entrails”) is different from the fat that surrounds and adheres to the various organs (“on the entrails,” i.e., surrounding them; J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:205-7).


Heb “and the protruding lobe on the liver on the kidneys he shall remove it.” Cf. NRSV “the appendage of the liver”; NIV “the covering of the liver” (KJV “the caul above the liver”).


Or “on the fire – [it is] a gift of a soothing aroma to the Lord ” (see Lev 1:13 b, 17b, and the note on 1:9 b).


Heb “a male or female without defect he shall present it”; cf. NLT “must have no physical defects.”


See the note on this term at 1:5 .


Heb “and the protruding lobe on the liver on the kidneys he shall remove it.”


Heb “food, a gift to the Lord .”


The words “This is” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied due to requirements of English style.


Heb “for your generations”; NAB “for your descendants”; NLT “for you and all your descendants.”


Heb “all fat and all blood you must not eat.”


Heb “And a person, when he sins in straying.” The English translation of “by straying” ( בִּשְׁגָגָה [ bishgagah ] literally, “in going astray; in making an error”) varies greatly, but almost all suggest that this term refers to sins that were committed by mistake or done not knowing that the particular act was sinful (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:228-29). See, e.g., LXX “involuntarily”; Tg. Onq. “by neglect”; KJV “through ignorance”; ASV, RSV, NJPS “unwittingly”; NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT “unintentionally”; NAB, NEB “inadvertently”; NCV “by accident.” However, we know from Num 15:27-31 that committing a sin “by straying” is the opposite of committing a sin “defiantly” (i.e., בְּיַד רָמָה [ bÿyad ramah ] “with a raised hand,” v. 30 ). In the latter case the person, as it were, raises his fist in presumptuous defiance against the Lord . Thus, he “blasphemes” the Lord and has “despised” his word, for which he should be “cut off from among his people” ( Num 15:30-31 ). One could not bring an offering for such a sin. The expression here in Lev 4:2 combines “by straying” with the preposition “from” which fits naturally with “straying” (i.e., “straying from” the Lord ’s commandments). For sins committed “by straying” from the commandments ( throughout) or other types of transgressions ( Lev 5:1-6 ) there was indeed forgiveness available through the sin offering. See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:94-95.


This is an emphatic use of the preposition מִן ( min ; see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 56-57, §325).


The “when” clause ( כִּי , ki ) breaks off here before its resolution, thus creating an open-ended introduction to the following subsections, which are introduced by “if” ( אִם [’ im ] vv. 3, 13, 27, 32 ). Also, the last part of the verse reads literally, “which must not be done and does from one from them.”


Heb “the anointed priest” (so ASV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). This refers to the high priest (cf. TEV, CEV, NLT).


Heb “to the guilt of the people”; NRSV “thus bringing guilt on the people.”


Heb “and he shall offer on his sin which he sinned, a bull, a son of the herd, flawless.”


Heb “from the blood of the bull” (and similarly throughout this chapter).


The Hebrew verb וְהִזָּה ( vÿhizzah , Hiphil of נָזָה , nazah ) does indeed mean “sprinkle” or “splatter.” Contrast the different Hebrew verb meaning “splash” in Lev 1:5 ( זָרָק , zaraq ).


Heb “of the blood.” The relative pronoun (“it”) has been used in the translation here for stylistic reasons.


The particle here translated “toward” usually serves as a direct object indicator or a preposition meaning “with.” With the verb of motion it probably means “toward,” “in the direction of” (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:234; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 60); cf. NAB, CEV.


The Hebrew term פָּרֹכֶת ( parokhet ) is usually translated “veil” (e.g., ASV, NAB, NASB) or “curtain” (e.g., NIV, NRSV), but it seems to have stretched not only in front of but also over the top of the ark of the covenant which stood behind and under it inside the most holy place (see R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 3:687-89).


Heb “all the fat of the bull of the sin offering he shall take up from it.”


The MT has here the preposition עַל (’ al , “on, upon” [i.e., “which covers on the entrails,” as awkward in Hebrew as it is in English]), but Smr, LXX, Syriac, and Targums read אֶת (’ et ), which is what would be expected (i.e., “which covers the entrails”; cf. Lev 3:3, 9, 14 ). It may have been mistakenly inserted here under the influence of “on ( עַל ) the entrails” at the end of the verse.


Heb “and all the fat on the entrails.” The fat layer that covers the entrails as a whole (i.e., “that covers the entrails”) is different from the fat that surrounds and adheres to the various organs (“on the entrails,” i.e., surrounding them; J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:205-7).


Heb “and the protruding lobe on the liver on the kidneys he shall remove it.”


Heb “taken up from”; KJV, ASV “taken off from”; NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV “removed.” See the notes on Lev 3:3-4 above (cf. also 3:9-10, 14-15 ).


All of v. 11 is a so-called casus pendens (also known as an extraposition or a nominative absolute), which means that it anticipates the next verse, being the full description of “all (the rest of) the bull” (lit. “all the bull”) at the beginning of v. 12 (actually after the first verb of the verse; see the next note below).


Heb “And he (the offerer) shall bring out all the bull to from outside to the camp to a clean place.”


Heb “a clean place,” but referring to a place that is ceremonially clean. This has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “the pouring out [place] of fatty ash.”


Heb “burn with fire.” This expression is somewhat redundant in English, so the translation collocates “fire” with “wood,” thus “a wood fire.”


Heb “strays”; KJV “sin through ignorance.” The verb “strays” here is the verbal form of the noun in the expression “by straying” (see the note on Lev 4:2 above).


Heb “is concealed from the eyes of”; NASB, NRSV, NLT “escapes the notice of.”


Heb “and they do one from all the commandments of the Lord which must not be done” (cf. v. 2 ).


Heb “and the sin which they committed on it becomes known”; KJV “which they have sinned against it.” The Hebrew עָלֶיהָ (’ aleha , “on it”) probably refers back to “one of the commandments” in v. 13 (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:243).


Heb “and he shall slaughter.” The singular verb seems to refer to an individual who represents the whole congregation, perhaps one of the elders referred to at the beginning of the verse, or the officiating priest (cf. v. 21 ). The LXX and Syriac make the verb plural, referring to “the elders of the congregation.”


Heb “the anointed priest” (so ASV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). This refers to the high priest (cf. TEV).


The words “in the blood” are not repeated in the Hebrew text at this point, but must be supplied in the English translation for clarity.


The Hebrew verb וְהִזָּה ( vÿhizzah , Hiphil of נָזָה , nazah ) does indeed mean “sprinkle” or “splatter.” Contrast the different Hebrew verb translated “splash” in Lev 1:5 ( זָרָק , zaraq ).


The MT reads literally, “and the priest shall dip his finger from the blood and sprinkle seven times.” This is awkward. Compare v. 6 , which has literally, “and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle from the blood seven times.” The MT appears to be corrupt by haplography (i.e., assuming v. 6 to be the correct form, in v. 17 the scribe skipped from “his finger” to “from the blood,” thus missing “in the blood”) and metathesis (i.e., this also resulted in a text where “from the blood” stands before “sprinkle” rather than after it; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 47).


See the note on v. 6 above.


Heb “Then he”; the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. Based on the parallel statement in 4:10 and 4:31 , it is the priest who performs this action rather than the person who brought the offering.


Heb “take up all its fat from it”; NASB “shall remove all its fat from it.” sn See the full discussion of the fat regulations in Lev 4:8-9 above.


Heb “it”; the referent (the fat) has been specified in the translation for clarity. Only the fat is meant here, since the “rest” of the bull is mentioned in v. 21 .


Heb “there shall be forgiveness to them” or “it shall be forgiven to them.”


Heb “And he shall bring out the bull to from outside to the camp.”


This section begins with the relative pronoun אֲשֶׁר (’ asher ) which usually means “who” or “which,” but here means “whenever.”


See the Lev 4:2 note on “straying.”


Heb “and does one from all the commandments of the Lord his God which must not be done”; cf. NRSV “ought not to be done”; NIV “does what is forbidden in any of the commands.”


Heb “or his sin which he sinned in it is made known to him”; NAB “if he learns of the sin he committed.”


Lev 4:22 b-23a is difficult. The present translation suggests that there are two possible legal situations envisioned, separated by the Hebrew אוֹ (’ o , “or”) at the beginning of v. 23 . Lev 4:22 b refers to any case in which the leader readily admits his guilt (i.e., “pleads guilty”), whereas v. 23 a refers to cases where the leader is convicted of his guilt by legal action (“his sin…is made known to him”). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:95-96; Lev 4:27-28 ; and esp. the notes on Lev 5:1 below.


Heb “a he-goat of goats, a male without defect”; cf. NLT “with no physical defects.”


The LXX has a plural form here and also for the same verb later in the verse. See the note on Lev 1:5 a.


Heb “Then he”; the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. Based on the parallel statements in 4:10 and 4:31 , it is the priest who performs this action rather than the person who brought the offering.


Heb “from.” In this phrase the preposition מִן ( min ) may be referring to the reason or cause (“on account of, because of”; GKC 383 §119. z ). As J. E. Hartley ( Leviticus [WBC], 47) points out, “from” may refer to the removal of the sin, but is an awkward expression. Hartley also suggests that the phrasing might be “an elliptical expression for יְכַפֵּר עַל־לְטַהֵר אֶת־מִן , ‘he will make expiation for…to cleanse…from…,’ as in 16:30 .”


Heb “there shall be forgiveness to him” or “it shall be forgiven to him” (KJV similar).


Heb “an individual from the people of the land”; cf. NASB “anyone of the common people” (KJV, ASV both similar); NAB “a private person.”


Heb “If one person sins by straying, from the people of the land.” See Lev 4:2 for a note on “straying.”


Heb “by doing it, one from the commandments of the Lord which must not be done.”


Heb “or his sin which he sinned is made known to him”; cf. NCV “when that person learns about his sin.”


Lev 4:27 b-28a is essentially the same as 4:22 b-23a (see the notes there).


Heb “a she-goat of goats, a female without defect”; NAB “an unblemished she-goat.”


Heb “on his sin.”


The LXX has a plural form here (see v. 24 above and the note on Lev 1:5 a).


Heb “Then he”; the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. Here “he” refers to the offerer rather than the priest (contrast the clauses before and after).


Heb “And a person when he sins.” Most English versions translate this as the protasis of a conditional clause: “if a person sins” (NASB, NIV). sn The same expression occurs in Lev 4:2 where it introduces sins done “by straying unintentionally from any of the commandments of the Lord which must not be done” (see the notes there). Lev 5:1-13 is an additional section of sin offering regulations directed at violations other than those referred to by this expression in Lev 4:2 (see esp. 5:1-6 ), and expanding on the offering regulations for the common person in Lev 4:27-35 with concessions to the poor common person ( 5:7-13 ).


The words “against one who fails to testify” are not in the Hebrew text, but have been supplied to make sense of the remark about the “curse” (“imprecation” or “oath”; cf. ASV “adjuration”; NIV “public charge”) for the modern reader. For the interpretation of this verse reflected in the present translation see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:292-97.


The words “what had happened” are not in the Hebrew text, but are implied.


Heb “and hears a voice of curse, and he is a witness or he saw or he knew, if he does not declare.”


Heb “and he shall bear his iniquity.” The rendering “bear the punishment (for the iniquity)” reflects the use of the word “iniquity” to refer to the punishment for iniquity (cf. NRSV, NLT “subject to punishment”). It is sometimes referred to as the consequential use of the term (cf. Lev 5:17; 7:18; 10:17 ; etc.).


The insertion of the words “when there is” is a reflection of the few Hebrew mss , Smr, and LXX that have כִּי ( ki , “when, if”; cf. vv. 3 and esp. 4) rather than the MT’s אֲשֶׁר (’ asher , “who”). Many English versions render this as a conditional clause (“if”).


The word “ceremonially” has been supplied in the translation to clarify that the uncleanness involved is ritual or ceremonial in nature.


Heb “and it is hidden from him,” meaning that the person who contracted the ceremonial uncleanness was not aware at the time what had happened, but later found out that he had become ceremonially unclean. This same phrase occurs again in both vv. 3 and 4 .


Heb “or if he touches uncleanness of mankind to any of his uncleanness which he becomes unclean in it.”


Heb “to speak thoughtlessly”; cf. NAB “rashly utters an oath.”


Heb “and is guilty to one from these,” probably referring here to any of “these” things about which one might swear a thoughtless oath (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 45), with the word “oath” supplied in the translation for clarity. Another possibility is that “to one from these” is a dittography from v. 5 (cf. the note on v. 5 a), and that v. 4 ends with “and is guilty” like vv. 2 and 3 (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:300).


Heb “and it shall happen when he becomes guilty to one from these,” referring to any of “these” possible transgressions in Lev 5:1-4 . Tg. Onq. , the original Greek translation, and the Latin Vulgate omit this clause, possibly due to homoioteleuton because of the repetition of “to one from these” from the end of v. 4 in v. 5 a (cf. the note on v. 4 b). sn What all the transgressions in Lev 5:1-4 have in common is that the time is past for handling the original situation properly (i.e., testifying in court, following purity regulations, or fulfilling an oath), so now the person has become guilty and needs to follow corrective sacrificial procedures.


Heb “which he sinned on it”; cf. ASV “confess that wherein he hath sinned”; NCV “must tell how he sinned.”


In this context the word for “guilt” ( אָשָׁם , ’ asham ) refers to the “penalty” for incurring guilt, the so-called consequential אָשָׁם (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:303; cf. the note on Lev 5:1 ).


See the note on 4:26 regarding the use of מִן ( min ).


Heb “and if his hand does not reach enough of a flock animal” (see the note on v. 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. 6 ), referring to the smaller pasture animals as opposed to the larger ones (i.e., cattle; cf. 4:3 ). Some English versions use the more generic “animal” (e.g., NAB, CEV).


Heb “and he shall bring his guilt which he sinned,” which is an abbreviated form of Lev 5:6 , “and he shall bring his [penalty for] guilt to the Lord for his sin which he committed.” The words “for his sin” have been left out in v. 7 , and “to the Lord ” has been moved so that it follows the mention of the birds.


See the note on Lev 1:14 above.


Heb “he.” The subject (“he”) refers to the priest here, not the offerer who presented the birds to the priest (cf. v. 8 a).


Heb “he shall not divide [it]” (see J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:305).


The Hebrew verb וְהִזָּה ( vÿhizzah , Hiphil of נָזָה , nazah ) does indeed mean “sprinkle” or “splatter” (cf. Lev 4:6, 17 ). Contrast “splash” in Lev 1:5 , etc. ( זָרָק , zaraq ).


Heb “the remainder in the blood.” The Heb. preposition “in” ( בְּ , bÿ ) is used here to mean “some among” a whole collection of something.


The word “bird” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


See the note on 4:26 with regard to מִן , min .


Heb “there shall be forgiveness to him” or “it shall be forgiven to him” (KJV similar).


Heb “and if his hand does not reach [or is not sufficient] to”; cf. NASB “if his means are insufficient for.” The expression is the same as that in Lev 5:7 above except for the verb: נָשַׂג ( nasag , “to collect, to reach, to be sufficient”) is used here, but נָגַע ( nagah , “to touch, to reach”) is used in v. 7 . Smr has the former in both v. 7 and 11 .


See the note on Lev 1:14 above (cf. also 5:7 ).


Heb “and he shall bring his offering which he sinned.” Like the similar expression in v. 7 above (see the note there), this is an abbreviated form of Lev 5:6 , “and he shall bring his [penalty for] guilt to the Lord for his sin which he committed.” Here the words “to the Lord for his sin” have been left out, and “his [penalty for] guilt” has been changed to “his offering.”


See the note on Lev 2:1 above.


Heb “from one from these,” referring to the four kinds of violations of the law delineated in Lev 5:1-4 (see the note on Lev 5:5 above and cf. Lev 4:27 ).


Heb “and it”; the referent (the remaining portion of the offering) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “and it shall be to the priest like the grain offering,” referring to the rest of the grain that was not offered on the altar (cf. the regulations in Lev 2:3, 10 ).


Heb “trespasses a trespass” (verb and direct object from the same Hebrew root, מַעַל , ma ’ al ); cf. NIV “commits a violation.” The word refers to some kind of overstepping of the boundary between that which is common (i.e., available for common use by common people) and that which is holy (i.e., to be used only for holy purposes because it has been consecrated to the Lord , see further below). See the note on Lev 10:10 .


See Lev 4:2 above for a note on “straying.”


Here the word for “guilt” ( אָשָׁם , ’ asham ) refers to the “penalty” for incurring guilt, the so-called consequential use of אָשָׁם (’ asham ; see J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:303).


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). sn The sanctuary shekel was about 10 grams (= ca. two fifths of an ounce; J. E. Shepherd, NIDOTTE 4:237-38).


The word for “guilt offering” (sometimes translated “reparation offering”) is the same as “guilt” earlier in the verse (rendered there “[penalty for] guilt”). One can tell which is intended only by the context. sn The primary purpose of the guilt offering was to “atone” (see the note on Lev 1:4 above) for “trespassing” on the Lord ’s “holy things” (see later in this verse) or the property of others in the community ( Lev 6:1-7 [5:20-26 HT]; 19:20-22 ; Num 5:5-10 ). It was closely associated with reconsecration of the Lord ’s sacred things or his sacred people (see, e.g., Lev 14:12-18 ; Num 6:11 b-12). Moreover, there was usually an associated reparation made for the trespass, including restitution of that which was violated plus one fifth of its value as a fine ( Lev 5:16; 6:5 [5:24 HT]). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:557-66.


Heb “and which he sinned from the holy thing.”


Heb “and does one from all of the commandments of the Lord which must not be done.”


The words “at the time” are not in the Hebrew text, but are implied.


Heb “and he did not know, and he shall be guilty and he shall bear his iniquity” (for the rendering “bear his punishment [for iniquity]”) see the note on Lev 5:1 .) This portion of v. 17 is especially difficult. The translation offered here suggests (as in many other English versions) that the offender did not originally know that he had violated the Lord ’s commandments, but then came to know it and dealt with it accordingly (cf. the corresponding sin offering section in Lev 5:1-4 ). Another possibility is that it refers to a situation where a person suspects that he violated something although he does not recollect it. Thus, he brings a guilt offering for his suspected violation (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:331-34, 361-63). See also R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:561-62.


The statement here is condensed. See the full expression in 5:15 and the note there.


Heb “on his straying which he strayed.” See the note on Lev 4:2 .


Heb “there shall be forgiveness to him” or “it shall be forgiven to him” (KJV and NASB both similar).


Heb “trespasses a trespass” (verb and direct object from the same Hebrew root מַעַל , ma ’ al ). See the note on 5:15 .


Or “neighbor” (ASV, NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT); NASB “companion”; TEV “a fellow-Israelite.”


Heb “has extorted his neighbor”; ASV “oppressed”; NRSV “defrauded.”


Heb “and swears on falsehood”; cf. CEV “deny something while under oath.”


Heb “on one from all which the man shall do to sin in them.”


Heb “and it shall happen, when he sins and becomes guilty,” which is both resumptive of the previous (vv. 2-3 ) and the conclusion to the protasis (cf. “then” introducing the next clause as the apodosis). In this case, “becomes guilty” (cf. NASB, NIV) probably refers to his legal status as one who has been convicted of a crime in court; thus the translation “he is found guilty.” See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:559-61.


Heb “that had been held in trust with him.”


Heb “or from all which he swears on it to falsehood.”


Heb “in its head.” This refers “the full amount” in terms of the “principal,” the original item or amount obtained illegally (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:338; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 84).


Heb “to whom it is to him he shall give it in the day of his being guilty.” The present translation is based on the view that he has been found guilty through the legal process (see the note on v. 4 above; cf., e.g., TEV and B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 33-34). Others translate the latter part as “in the day he offers his guilt [reparation] offering” (e.g., NIV and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 73, 84), or “in the day he realizes his guilt” (e.g., NRSV and J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:319, 338).


The words “into silver shekels” are supplied here. See the full expression in Lev 5:15 , and compare 5:18 . Cf. NRSV “or its equivalent”; NLT “or the animal’s equivalent value in silver.”


Heb “there shall be forgiveness to him” or “it shall be forgiven to him” (KJV similar).


Heb “on one from all which he does to become guilty in it”; NAB “whatever guilt he may have incurred.”


Heb “It is the burnt offering on the hearth.”


Heb “in it.” In this context “in it” apparently refers to the “hearth” which was on top of the altar.


The exact nature of this article of the priest’s clothing is difficult to determine. Cf. KJV, ASV “breeches”; NAB “drawers”; NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT “undergarments”; NCV “underclothes”; CEV “underwear”; TEV “shorts.”


Heb “he shall lift up the fatty ashes which the fire shall consume the burnt offering on the altar.”


Heb “it,” referring the “fatty ashes” as a single unit.


The word “ceremonially” has been supplied in the translation to clarify that the uncleanness of the place involved is ritual or ceremonial in nature.


Heb “in it,” apparently referring to the “hearth” which was on top of the altar (cf. the note on v. 9 ).


Heb “offering it, the sons of Aaron.” The verb is a Hiphil infinitive absolute, which is used here in place of the finite verb as either a jussive (GKC 346 §113. cc , “let the sons of Aaron offer”) or more likely an injunctive in light of the verbs that follow (Joüon 2:430 §123. v , “the sons of Aaron shall/must offer”).


Heb “and he”; the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. The “he” refers to the officiating priest. A similar shift between singular and plural occurs in Lev 1:7-9 , but see the note on Lev 1:7 and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 89 for the possibility of textual corruption.


Heb “shall take up from it with his hand some of the choice wheat flour of the grain offering.”


Smr reading, which includes the locative ה ( hey , translated “on” the altar), is preferred here. This is the normal construction with the verb “offer up in smoke” in Lev 1-7 (see the note on Lev 1:9 ).


Heb “and he shall offer up in smoke [on] the altar a soothing aroma, its memorial portion, to the Lord .”


Heb “It must not be baked leavened” (cf. Lev 2:11 ). The noun “leaven” is traditional in English versions (cf. KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV), but “yeast” is more commonly used today.


Heb “holiness of holinesses [or holy of holies] it is”; cf. NAB “most sacred.”


Or “a perpetual regulation”; cf. NASB “a permanent ordinance”; NRSV “as their perpetual due.”


Heb “for your generations”; cf. NIV “for the generations to come.”


Heb “touches them”; the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. In this context “them” must refer to the “gifts” of the Lord .


Or “anyone/anything that touches them shall become holy” (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:443-56). The question is whether this refers to the contagious nature of holy objects (cf. NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) or whether it simply sets forth a demand that anyone who touches the holy gifts of the Lord must be a holy person (cf. CEV). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:900-902.


For the rendering “choice wheat flour” see the note on Lev 2:1 .


The term rendered here “well soaked” (see, e.g., NRSV; the Hebrew term is מֻרְבֶּכֶת , murbbekhet ) occurs only three times (here; 7:12 , and 1 Chr 23:29 ), and is sometimes translated “well-mixed” (e.g., NIV, NCV, NLT; NASB “well stirred”; NAB “well kneaded”). The meaning is uncertain (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:399-400), but in Lev 7:12 it stands parallel to already prepared grain offerings either “mixed” (the Hebrew term is בְּלוּלֹת ( bÿlulot ), not מֻרְבֶּכֶת as in Lev 6:21 [ 6:14 HT]) or anointed with oil.


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.


Heb “And the anointed priest under him.”


Heb “holiness of holinesses [or holy of holies] it is.” Cf. NAB “most sacred”; CEV “very sacred”; TEV “very holy.”


Heb “on the garment”; NCV “on any clothes”; CEV “on the clothes of the priest.”


The translation “you must wash” is based on the MT as it stands (cf. NASB, NIV). Smr, LXX, Syriac, Tg. Ps.-J. , and the Vulgate have a third person masculine singular passive form (Pual), “[the garment] must be washed” (cf. NAB, NRSV, NLT). This could also be supported from the verbs in the following verse, and it requires only a repointing of the Hebrew text with no change in consonants. See the remarks in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 90 and J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:404.


Heb “it”; the words “that vessel” are supplied in the translation to clarify the referent.


Heb “holiness of holinesses [or holy of holies] it is” (also in 7:1 ).


Heb “burned with fire,” an expression which is sometimes redundant in English, but here means “burned up,” “burned up entirely.”


Heb “he”; the referent (the officiating priest) has been specified in the translation for clarity. This priest was responsible for any actions involving direct contact with the altar (e.g., the splashing of the blood).


See the note on Lev 1:5 .


Heb “then he.” This pronoun refers to the offerer, who was responsible for slaughtering the animal. Contrast v. 2 above and v. 5 below.


See the notes on Lev 3:3-4 .


See the note on Lev 1:9 above.


Heb “holiness of holinesses [or holy of holies] it is”; NAB “most sacred”; TEV “very holy.”


Heb “like the sin offering like the guilt offering, one law to them.”


Heb “and” rather than “or” (cf. also the next “or”).


Heb “and all made in the pan”; cf. KJV “fryingpan”; NAB “deep-fried in a pot.”


Heb “a man like his brother.”


This “he” pronoun refers to the offerer. Smr and LXX have plural “they.”


Or “for a thank offering.”


See the notes on Lev 2:4 .


See the note on Lev 6:21 [ 6:14 HT].


Heb “choice wheat flour well soaked ring-shaped loaves.” See the note on Lev 2:1 .


The rendering “this [grain] offering” is more literally “his offering,” but it refers to the series of grain offerings listed just previously in v. 12 .


The words “which regularly accompany” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied for clarity. sn The translation “[which regularly accompany]…” is based on the practice of bringing bread (and wine) to eat with the portions of the peace offering meat eaten by the priests and worshipers (see v. 14 and Num 15:1-13 ). This was in addition to the memorial portion of the unleavened bread that was offered to the Lord on the altar (cf. Lev 2:2, 9 , and the note on 7:12 ).


Here the Hebrew text reads “offering” ( קָרְבָּן , qorbban ), not “grain offering” ( מִנְחָה , minkhah ), but in this context the term refers once again to the list in 7:12 .


The term rendered “contribution offering” is תְּרוּמָה ( tÿrumah ), which generally refers to that which is set aside from the offerings to the Lord as prebends for the officiating priests (cf. esp. Lev 7:28-34 and R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 4:335-37). Cf. TEV “as a special contribution.”


In the verse “his” refers to the offerer.


For the distinction between votive and freewill offerings see the note on Lev 22:23 and the literature cited there.


Heb “and on the next day and the left over from it shall be eaten.”


Heb “burned with fire,” an expression which is sometimes redundant in English, but here means “burned up,” “burned up entirely” (likewise in v. 19 ).


Or “desecrated,” or “defiled,” or “forbidden.” For this difficult term see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:422. Cf. NIV “it is impure”; NCV “it will become unclean”; NLT “will be contaminated.”


Heb “his iniquity he shall bear” (cf. Lev 5:1 ); NIV “will be held responsible”; NRSV “shall incur guilt”; TEV “will suffer the consequences.”


The word “ceremonially” has been supplied in the translation both here and in the following sentence to clarify that the uncleanness involved is ritual or ceremonial in nature.


The Hebrew has simply “the flesh,” but this certainly refers to “clean” flesh in contrast to the unclean flesh in the first half of the verse.


Heb “and his unclean condition is on him.”


Heb “carcass,” referring to the carcass of an animal that has died on its own, not the carcass of an animal slaughtered for sacrifice or killed by wild beasts. This has been clarified in the translation by supplying the phrase “of natural causes”; cf. NAB, TEV “that has died a natural death.”


Heb “shall be used for any work”; cf. NIV, NLT “may be used for any other purpose.”


Heb “and any blood you must not eat in any of your dwelling places, to the bird and to the animal.”


Heb “on the breast.”


Many Hebrew mss and some versions (esp. the LXX) limit the offerings in the last part of this verse to the fat portions, specifically, the fat and the fat lobe of the liver (see the BHS footnote). The verse is somewhat awkward in Hebrew but nevertheless correct. tn Heb “the breast to wave it, a wave offering before the Lord .” Other possible translations are “to elevate the breast [as] an elevation offering before the Lord ” (cf. NRSV) or “to present the breast [as] a presentation offering before the Lord .” See J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 91, J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:430-31, 461-72, and R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 3:63-67.


Older English versions (e.g., KJV, ASV) translate this Hebrew term ( תְּרוּמָה , tÿrumah ) “heave offering,” derived from the idea of “to raise, to lift” found in the verbal root (cf. NAB “a raised offering”). “Contribution offering” is a better English rendering because it refers to something “taken out from” (i.e., “lifted up from”; cf. the Hebrew term הֵרִים ( herim ) in, e.g., Lev 2:9; 4:8 , etc.) the offering as a special contribution to the specific priest who presided over the offering procedures in any particular instance (see the next verse and R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 4:335-37). Cf. TEV “as a special contribution”; NCV, NLT “as a gift.”


Or “a perpetual regulation”; cf. NASB “as their due forever”; NRSV “as a perpetual due”; NLT “their regular share.”


Heb “the day he”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


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].”


Heb “which the Lord commanded to give to them in the day he anointed them from the children of Israel.” Thus v. 36 is tied syntactically to v. 35 (see the note there).


Heb “for your generations”; cf. NIV “for the generations to come”; TEV “for all time to come.”


In the MT only “the grain offering” lacks a connecting ו ( vav ). However, many Hebrew , Smr, LXX, Syriac, and some mss of Tg. Onq. have the ו ( vav ) on “the grain offering” as well.


Heb “on him”; the referent (Aaron) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “girded him with the sash” (so NASB); NCV “tied the cloth belt around him.” sn The sash fastened the tunic around the waist ( Exod 28:4, 39; 29:9; 39:29 ).


Heb “girded him with.”


Although usually thought to be a “turban” (and so translated by the majority of English versions) this object might be only a “turban-like headband” wound around the forehead area ( HALOT 624 s.v. מִצְנֶפֶת ). sn The turban consisted of wound-up linen (cf. Exod 28:4, 37, 39; 29:6; 39:31 ; Lev 16:4 ).


The MT has here “sash” (singular), but the context is clearly plural and Smr has it in the plural. tn Heb “girded them with sashes” (so NAB, NASB); NRSV “fastened sashes around them.”


Heb “wrapped headdresses to them”; cf. KJV “bonnets”; NASB, TEV “caps”; NIV, NCV “headbands”; NAB, NLT “turbans.” sn Notice that the priestly garments of Aaron’s sons are quite limited compared to those of Aaron himself, the high priest (cf. vv. 7-9 above). The terms for “tunic” and “sash” are the same but not the headgear (cf. Exod 28:40; 29:8-9; 39:27-29 ).


The verb is the Piel of חָטָא ( khata ’, “to sin”) and means “to de-sin” the altar. This verse is important for confirming the main purpose of the sin offering, which was to decontaminate the tabernacle and its furniture from any impurities. See the note on Lev 4:3 .


Similar to v. 10 above, “and consecrated it” refers to the effect of the blood manipulation earlier in the verse. The goal here was to consecrate the altar in order that it might become a place on which it would be appropriate “to make atonement” before the Lord .


Again, Aaron probably performed the slaughter and collected the fat parts (v. 16 a), but Moses presented it all on the altar (v. 16 b; cf. the note on v. 15 above).


Heb “toward the altar” (see the note on Lev 1:9 ).


Heb “he burned with fire,” an expression which is sometimes redundant in English, but here means “burned up,” “burned up entirely.”


Aaron probably did the slaughtering (cf. the notes on Lev 8:15-16 above).


Again, Aaron probably cut the ram up into parts (v. 20 a), but Moses presented them on the altar (v. 20 b; cf. the note on v. 15 above).


Heb “cut it into its parts.” One could translate here, “quartered it” (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:133; cf. Lev 1:6, 12 above).


Again, Aaron probably did the washing (v. 21 a), but Moses presented the portions on the altar (v. 21 b; cf. the note on v. 15 above).


See Lev 1:9, 13 .


For “ordination offering” see Lev 7:37


Again, Aaron probably did the slaughtering (cf. the notes on Lev 8:15-16 above).


Heb “on the lobe of the ear of Aaron, the right one.”


The term for “big toe” ( בֹּהֶן , bohen ) is the same as that for “thumb.” It refers to the larger appendage on either the hand or the foot.


See Lev 3:9 .


See Lev 8:16 .


See Lev 7:32-34 .


See Lev 2:4 .


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. 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).


Several major ancient versions have the passive form of the verb (see BHS v. 31 note c; cf. Lev 8:35; 10:13 ). In that case we would translate, “just as I was commanded.”


Heb “but the remainder in the flesh and in the bread”; NAB, CEV “what is left over”; NRSV “what remains.”


Heb “because seven days he shall fill your hands”; KJV “for seven days shall he consecrate you”; CEV “ends seven days from now.” sn It is apparent that the term for “ordination offering” ( מִלֻּאִים , millu ’ im ; cf. Lev 7:37 and the note there) is closely related to the expression “he shall fill (Piel מִלֵּא , mille ’) your hands” in this verse. Some derive the terminology from the procedure in Lev 8:27-28 , but the term for “hands” there is actually “palms.” It seems more likely that it derives from the notion of putting the priestly responsibilities (or possibly its associated prebends) under their control (i.e., “filling their hands” with authority; see J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:538-39). The command “to keep the charge of the Lord ” in v. 35 and the expression “by the hand of Moses” (i.e., under the authoritative hand of Moses, v. 36 ) may also support this interpretation.


Heb “just as he has done” (cf. the note on v. 33 ).


Heb “the Lord has commanded to do” (cf. the note on v. 33 ).


Heb “by the hand of” (so KJV).


Heb “called to”; CEV, NLT “called together.”


Heb “a he-goat of goats.”


Heb “and a calf and a lamb, sons of a year, flawless”; KJV, ASV, NRSV “without blemish”; NASB, NIV “without defect”; NLT “with no physical defects.”


The verb is either a prophetic perfect (“will appear to you”) as in the MT (cf. IBHS §30.5.1.e; so many English versions), or a futurum instans participle (“is going to appear to you”) as in the LXX and several other versions (see the BHS footnote; cf. IBHS 627 §37.6f). In either case, the point is that Moses was anticipating that the Lord would indeed appear to them on this day (cf. vv. 6, 22-24 ).


Heb “to the faces of.”


Heb “which the Lord commanded you shall/should do.”


Heb “and the glory of the Lord will appear,” but the construction with the simple vav ( ו ) plus the imperfect/jussive ( וְיֵרָא , vÿyera ’; literally, “and he will appear”) suggests purpose in this context, not just succession of events (i.e., “so that he might appear”).


Instead of “on behalf of the people,” the LXX has “on behalf of your house” as in the Hebrew text of Lev 16:6, 11, 17 . Many commentaries follow the LXX here (e.g., J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:578; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 118) as do a few English versions (e.g., NAB), but others argue that, as on the Day of Atonement (), the offerings of the priests also effected the people, even though there was still the need to have special offerings made on behalf of the people as reflected in the second half of the verse (e.g., B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 56).


Heb “from.”


Heb “he burned with fire,” an expression which is sometimes redundant in English, but here means “burned up,” “burned up entirely.”


For smoothness in the English translation, “his” was used in place of “Aaron’s.”


The verb is a Hiphil form of מָצָא , matsa ’, “to find” (i.e., causative, literally “to cause to find,” but here the meaning is “to hand to” or “pass to”; see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 117-18, and J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:581-82). The distinction between this verb and “presented” in v. 9 above (see the note there) is that in v. 9 Aaron’s sons held the bowl while Aaron manipulated some of the blood at the altar, while here in v. 12 they simply handed the bowl to him so he could splash all the blood around on the altar (Milgrom, 581).


For “splashed” (also in v. 18 ) see the note on Lev 1:5 .


See the note on v. 12 .


Heb “and the burnt offering they handed to him to its parts and the head.”


The expression “and performed a decontamination rite [with] it” reads literally in the MT, “and decontaminated [with] it.” The verb is the Piel of חטא ( kht ’, Qal = “to sin”), which means “to decontaminate, purify” (i.e., “to de-sin”; see the note on Lev 8:15 ).


The term “standard regulation” ( מִשְׁפָּט , mishpat ) here refers to the set of regulations for burnt offering goats in Lev 1:10-13 . Cf. KJV “according to the manner”; ASV, NASB “according to the ordinance”; NIV, NLT “in the prescribed way”; CEV “in the proper way.”


See the note on Lev 9:12 .


Heb “And the fat from the ox and from the ram.”


The text here has only the participle “the cover” or “that which covers,” which is elliptical for “the fat which covers the entrails” (see Lev 3:3, 9, 14; 7:3 ).


The plural “they” refers to the sons of Aaron (cf. v. 18 ). The LXX, Smr, and Syriac have singular “he,” referring to Aaron alone as in the latter half of the verse (the singular is followed here by NLT). Cf. NCV “Aaron’s sons put them.”


Heb “from to the faces of the Lord .” The rendering here is based on the use of “my faces” and “your faces” referring to the very “presence” of the Lord in Exod 33:14-15 .


Heb “fell on their faces.” Many English versions and commentaries render here “shouted for joy” (e.g., NIV; cf. NCV, NLT) or “shouted joyfully,” but the fact the people “fell on their faces” immediately afterward suggests that they were frightened as, for example, in Exod 19:16 b; 20:18-21 .


Although it has been used elsewhere in this translation as an English variation from the ubiquitous use of vav in Hebrew, in this instance “then” as a rendering for vav is intended to show that the Nadab and Abihu catastrophe took place on the inauguration day described in . The tragic incident in happened in close temporal connection to the Lord ’s fire that consumed the offerings at the end of . Thus, for example, the “sin offering” male goat referred to in Lev 10:16-19 is the very one referred to in Lev 9:15 .


The expression “strange fire” ( אֵשׁ זָרָה , ’ esh zarah ) seems imprecise (cf. NAB “profane fire”; NIV “unauthorized fire”; NRSV “unholy fire”; NLT “a different kind of fire”) and has been interpreted numerous ways (see the helpful summary in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 132-33). The infraction may have involved any of the following or a combination thereof: (1) using coals from someplace other than the burnt offering altar (i.e., “unauthorized coals” according to J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:598; cf. Lev 16:12 and cf. “unauthorized person” אִישׁ זָר (’ ish zar ) in Num 16:40 [ 17:5 HT], NASB “layman”), (2) using the wrong kind of incense (cf. the Exod 30:9 regulation against “strange incense” קְטֹרֶת זָרָה ( qÿtoreh zarah ) on the incense altar and the possible connection to Exod 30:34-38 ), (3) performing an incense offering at an unprescribed time (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 59), or (4) entering the Holy of Holies at an inappropriate time ( Lev 16:1-2 ).


See the note on 9:24 a.


The Niphal verb of the Hebrew root קָדַשׁ ( qadash ) can mean either “to be treated as holy” (so here, e.g., BDB 873 s.v. קָּדַשׁ , LXX, NASB, and NEB) or “to show oneself holy” (so here, e.g., HALOT 1073 s.v. קדשׁ nif.1, NIV, NRSV, NLT; J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:595, 601-3; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 133-34). The latter rendering seems more likely here since, in the immediate context, the Lord himself had indeed shown himself to be holy by the way he responded to the illegitimate incense offering of Nadab and Abihu. They had not treated the Lord as holy, so the Lord acted on his own behalf to show that he was indeed holy.


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. כבד nif.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 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.


Smr has “you must not” ( לֹא , lo ’) rather than the MT’s “do not” ( אַל , ’ al ; cf. the following negative לֹא , lo ’, in the MT).


Heb “do not let free your heads.” Some have taken this to mean, “do not take off your headgear” (cf. NAB, NASB), but it probably also involves leaving one’s hair unkempt as a sign of mourning (see J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:608-9; cf. NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT).


Heb “shall weep [for] the burning which the Lord has burned”; NIV “may mourn for those the Lord has destroyed by fire.”


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. 9 functions as both a conclusion to v. 9 and an introduction to vv. 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. 10 ) as well as to teach the children of Israel all such statutes (v. 11 ).


Heb “and,” but regarding the translation “as well as,” see the note at the end of v. 9 .


Heb “by the hand of” (so KJV).


Heb “statute” (cf. 10:9, 11 ); cf. KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV “due”; NIV “share”; NLT “regular share.”


For the rendering of the Hebrew אִשֶׁה (’ isheh ) as “gift” rather than “offering [made] by fire,” see the note on Lev 1:9 .


The word “ceremonially” has been supplied in the translation to clarify that the cleanness of the place specified is ritual or ceremonial in nature.


Heb “but behold, it had been burnt” (KJV and NASB both similar).


Or “Behold!” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).


Or “Behold!” (so KJV, ASV, NASB); NRSV “See.”


Heb “today they presented their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord , and like these things have happened to me, and (if) I had eaten sin offering today would it be good in the eyes of the Lord ?” The idiom “would it be good in the eyes of [the Lord ]” has been translated “would [the Lord ] have been pleased.” Cf. NRSV “would it have been agreeable to the Lord?”; CEV, NLT “Would the Lord have approved?”


Heb “it was good in his eyes” (an idiom). Cf. KJV “he was content”; NLT “he approved.”


Heb “the animal,” but as a collective plural, and so throughout this chapter.


Heb “every divider of hoof and cleaver of the cleft of hooves”; KJV, ASV “parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted.”


Heb “bringer up of the cud” (a few of the ancient versions include the conjunction “and,” but it does not appear in the MT). The following verses make it clear that both dividing the hoof and chewing the cud were required; one of these conditions would not be enough to make the animal suitable for eating without the other.


Heb “this,” but as a collective plural (see the following context).


Heb “because a chewer of the cud it is” (see also vv. 5 and 6 ).


Heb “and hoof there is not dividing” (see also vv. 5 and 6 ).


See the note on Lev 11:3 .


The meaning and basic rendering of this clause is quite certain, but the verb for “chewing” the cud here is not the same as the preceding verses, where the expression is “to bring up the cud” (see the note on v. 3 above). It appears to be a cognate verb for the noun “cud” ( גֵּרָה , gerah ) and could mean either “to drag up” (i.e., from the Hebrew Qal of גָרָר [ garar ] meaning “to drag,” referring to the dragging the cud up and down between the stomach and mouth of the ruminant animal; so J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:647, 653) or “to chew” (i.e., from the Hebrew Niphal [or Qal B] of גָרָר used in a reciprocal sense; so J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 149, and compare BDB 176 s.v. גָרַר , “to chew,” with HALOT 204 s.v. גרר qal.B, “to ruminate”).


Heb “all which have fin and scale” (see also vv. 10 and 12 ).


Heb “in the water, in the seas and in the streams” (see also vv. 10 and 12 ).


For zoological remarks on the following list of birds see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:662-64; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 159-60.


Heb “and the buzzard to its kind” (see also vv. 16 and 19 for the same expression “of any kind”).


Heb “every crow to its kind.” Many English versions (e.g., KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) render this as “raven.”


Literally, “the daughter of the wasteland.” Various proposals for the species of bird referred to here include “owl” (KJV), “horned owl” (NIV, NCV), and “ostrich” (ASV, NAB, NASB, NRSV, NLT).


Heb “the one walking on four” (cf. vv. 21-23 and 27-28 ).


Heb “which to it are lower legs from above to its feet” (reading the Qere “to it” rather than the Kethib “not”).


For entomological remarks on the following list of insects see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:665-66; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 160-61.


Heb “and to these.”


Heb “to all” (cf. the note on v. 24 ). This and the following verses develop more fully the categories of uncleanness set forth in principle in vv. 24-25 .


Heb “divides hoof and cleft it does not cleave”; KJV “divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted”; NLT “divided but unsplit hooves.”


Heb “the one walking on four.” Compare Lev 11:20-23 .


For zoological analyses of the list of creatures in vv. 29-30 , see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:671-72; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 161-62.


Heb “And all which it shall fall on it from them.”


Heb “in water it shall be brought.”


Heb “And any earthenware vessel which shall fall from them into its midst.”


Heb “all which is in its midst.”


Heb “which water comes on it.”


Heb “any drink which may be drunk”; NASB “any liquid which may be drunk”; NLT “any beverage that is in such an unclean container.”


This half of the verse assumes that the unclean carcass has fallen into the food or drink (cf. v. 33 and also vv. 35-38 ).


Heb “be unclean.”


Heb “a spring and a cistern collection of water”; NAB, NIV “for collecting water.”


Heb “And if there falls from their carcass on any seed of sowing which shall be sown.”


This word for “animal” refers to land animal quadrupeds, not just any beast that dwells on the land (cf. 11:2 ).


Heb “which is food for you” or “which is for you to eat.”


Heb “goes” (KJV, ASV “goeth”); NIV “moves about”; NLT “slither along.” The same Hebrew term is translated “walks” in the following clause.


Heb “until all multiplying of legs.”


Heb “by any of the swarming things that swarm.”


Heb “to be to you for a God.”


Heb “for all the creatures.”


Heb “produces seed” (Hiphil of זָרַע , zara ’; used only elsewhere in Gen 1:11-12 for plants “producing” their own “seed”), referring to the process of childbearing as a whole, from conception to the time of birth (H. D. Preuss, TDOT 4:144; cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 164-65; and J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:742-43). Smr and LXX have Niphal “be impregnated” (see, e.g., Num 5:28 ); note KJV “If a woman have conceived seed” (cf. ASV, NAB, NRSV; also NIV, NLT “becomes pregnant”).


Heb “as the days of the menstrual flow [nom.] of her menstruating [q. inf.] she shall be unclean” (R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:925-26; the verb appears only in this verse in the OT). Cf. NASB “as in the days of her menstruation”; NLT “during her menstrual period”; NIV “during her monthly period.” sn See Lev 15:19-24 for the standard purity regulations for a woman’s menstrual period.


Heb “and in….”


This rendering, “the flesh of his foreskin,” is literal. Based on Lev 15:2-3 , one could argue that the Hebrew word for “flesh” here ( בָּשָׂר , basar ) is euphemistic for the male genitals and therefore translate “the foreskin of his member” (see, e.g., J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:748). A number of English versions omit this reference to the foreskin and mention only circumcision, presumably for euphemistic reasons (cf. NIV, NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT).


Heb “sit, dwell” ( יָשָׁב , yashav ) normally means “to sit, to dwell”), but here it means “to remain, to stay” in the same condition for a period of time (cf., e.g., Gen 24:55 ).


Heb “in bloods of purification” or “purifying” or “purity”; NASB “in the blood of her purification”; NRSV “her time of blood purification.” See the following note.


The initial seven days after the birth of a son were days of blood impurity for the woman as if she were having her menstrual period. Her impurity was contagious during this period, so no one should touch her or even furniture on which she has sat or reclined ( Lev 15:19-23 ), lest they too become impure. Even her husband would become impure for seven days if he had sexual intercourse with her during this time ( Lev 15:24 ; cf. 18:19 ). The next thirty-three days were either “days of purification, purifying” or “days of purity,” depending on how one understands the abstract noun טֹהֳרָה ( toharah , “purification, purity”) in this context. During this time the woman could not touch anything holy or enter the sanctuary, but she was no longer contagious like she had been during the first seven days. She could engage in normal everyday life, including sexual intercourse, without fear of contaminating anyone else (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 73-74; cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:749-50). Thus, in a sense, the thirty-three days were a time of blood “purity” (cf. the present translation) as compared to the previous seven days of blood “impurity,” but they were also a time of blood “purification” (or “purifying”) as compared to the time after the thirty-three days, when the blood atonement had been made and she was pronounced “clean” by the priest (see vv. 6-8 below). In other words, the thirty-three day period was a time of “blood” (flow), but this was “pure blood,” as opposed to the blood of the first seven days.


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.


For clarification of the translation here, see the notes on vv. 2-4 above. 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).


Heb “And when” (so KJV, NASB). Many recent English versions leave the conjunction untranslated.


Heb “a lamb the son of his year”; KJV “a lamb of the first year” (NRSV “in its first year”); NAB “a yearling lamb.”


Heb “and he” (i.e., the priest mentioned at the end of v. 6 ). The referent has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Or “she will be[come] pure.”


Heb “from her source [i.e., spring] of blood,” possibly referring to the female genital area, not just the “flow of blood” itself (as suggested by J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:761). Cf. ASV “from the fountain of her blood.”


Heb “If her hand cannot find the sufficiency of a sheep.” Many English versions render this as “lamb.”


Heb “from the sons of the pigeon,” referring either to “young pigeons” or “various species of pigeon” (contrast J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:168, with J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 14; cf. Lev 1:14 and esp. 5:7-10 ).


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.


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.


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.


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.”


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


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”).


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.


Heb “and the priest shall see the infection.”


There is no “if” expressed, but the contrast between the priestly finding in this verse and the next verse clearly implies it.


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.


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.”


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).


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).


Heb “and if.”


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


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


Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).


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


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.


Heb “a second seven days.”


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.


Heb “and behold.”


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).


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.”


Heb “and he shall wash his clothes.”


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 .


The “it” is not expressed but is to be understood. It refers to the “infection” (cf. the note on v. 2 above).


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


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.


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).


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


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.


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


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


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 .


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


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


Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).


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).


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


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


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


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


Heb “Or if/when.”


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).


Heb “and the priest shall see it.”


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).


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 ).


Some English versions translate “it shall be shown to [or “be seen by”] the priest,” taking the infection to be the subject of the verb (e.g., KJV, NASB, RSV, NRSV). Based on the Hebrew grammar there is no way to be sure which is intended.


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).


Heb “and behold.”


Heb “and behold its appearance is low ( שָׁפָל , shafal ) ‘from’ (comparative מִן , min , “lower than”) the skin.” Compare “deeper” in v. 3 above where, however, a different word is used ( עָמֹק , ’ amoq ), and see the note on “swelling” in v. 1 above (cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 192; note that, contrary to the MT, Tg. Onq. has עָמֹק in this verse as well as v. 4 ). 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. Some have argued that “this sore was lower than the surrounding skin” (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:773, 788), in which case “swelling” would be an inappropriate translation of שְׂאֵת ( sÿ ’ et ) in v. 19 . It seems unlikely, however, that the surface of a “boil” would sink below the surface of the surrounding skin. The infectious pus etc. that makes up a boil normally causes swelling.


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


Heb “It is an infection of disease. In the boil it has broken out.” For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above.


Heb “and if.”


Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).


Heb “and the priest will shut him up seven days.”


Heb “is indeed spreading.”


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


Heb “and if under it the bright spot stands, it has not spread.”


This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר ( taher , cf. the note on v. 6 above).


Heb “Or a body, if there is in its skin a burn of fire.”


Heb “and the priest shall see it.”


Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).


Heb “and its appearance is deep ‘from’ [comparative מִן ( min ) meaning ‘deeper than’] the skin.”


Heb “it is a disease. In the burn it has broken out.”


For the rendering “diseased infection” see the note on v. 2 above.


Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “and indeed.”


Heb “and low it is not ‘from’ (comparative מִן , min , “lower than”) the skin.” See the note on v. 20 above. Cf. TEV “not deeper than the surrounding skin.”


Heb “and if under it the bright spot stands, it has not spread in the skin.”


This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר ( taher ; cf. the note on v. 6 above).


Heb “And a man or a woman if there is in him an infection in head or in beard.” sn The shift here is from diseases that are on the (relatively) bare skin of the body to the scalp area of the male or female head or the bearded area of the male face.


Heb “and the priest shall see the infection.”


Heb “and behold.”


Heb “its appearance is deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן , min , “deeper than”) the skin.”


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


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.


Heb “It is scall. It is the disease of the head or the beard.”


Heb “and behold there is not its appearance deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן , min , meaning “deeper than”) the skin.”


Heb “and the priest will shut up the infection of the scall seven days.”


Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).


Heb “and the appearance of the scall is not deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן , min , meaning “deeper than”) the skin.”


The shaving is done by the one who has the infection. Although KJV, ASV have the passive “he shall be shaven” here, most modern English versions have the reflexive “shall shave himself” (so NAB).


Heb “but the scall shall he not shave” (so KJV, ASV); NIV “except for the diseased area.”


Heb “and the priest will shut up the scall a second seven days.”


Heb “and its appearance is not deep ‘from’ (comparative מִן , min , meaning “deeper than”) the skin.”


This is the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר ( taher , cf. the note on v. 6 above).


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


Heb “the priest shall not search to the reddish yellow hair.”


Heb “he”; the referent (the affected person) is specified in the translation for clarity (likewise in the following verse).


Heb “and if in his eyes the infection has stood.”


Heb “and the priest shall see.”


Heb “he,” but the regulation applies to a man or a woman (v. 38 a). In the translation “the person” is used to specify the referent more clearly.


Heb “And a man, when his head is rubbed bare, he is bald-headed.” The translation offered here, referring to the back of the head (i.e., the area from the top of the head sloping backwards), is based on the contrast between this condition and that of the following verse. See also B. A. Levine, Leviticus (JPSTC), 82.


Heb “And if from the front edge of his face, his head is rubbed bare.” See the note on v. 40 above.


The rendering “balding in front” corresponds to the location of the bareness at the beginning of the verse.


Heb “and the priest shall see it” (cf. KJV). The MT has “him/it” which some take to refer to the person as a whole (i.e., “him”; see, e.g., J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:770; NIV, NRSV, etc.), while others take it as a reference to the “infection” ( נֶגַע , nega ’) in v. 42 (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 172, 177). Smr has “her/it,” which would probably refer to “disease” ( צָרַעַת , tsara ’ at ) in v. 42 . The general pattern in the chapter suggests that “it,” either the infection or the disease, is the object of the examination (see, e.g., v. 3 above and v. 50 below).


Heb “and behold.”


Heb “like appearance of disease of skin of flesh.”


Or perhaps translate, “His infection [is] on his head,” as a separate independent sentence (cf. KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV). There is no causal expression in the Hebrew text connecting these two clauses, but the logical relationship between them seems to be causal.


Heb “And the diseased one who in him is the infection.”


Heb “and his head shall be unbound, and he shall cover on [his] mustache.” Tearing one’s clothing, allowing the hair to hang loose rather than bound up in a turban, and covering the mustache on the upper lip are all ways of expressing shame, grief, or distress (cf., e.g., Lev 10:6 and Micah 3:7 ).


Heb “All the days which the infection is in him.”


Heb “And the garment, if there is in it a mark of disease.”


Heb “in a wool garment or in a linen garment.”


Heb “in any handiwork of skin” (cf. KJV, ASV, NRSV); most other modern English versions have “leather.”


Heb “and the infection is.” This clause is conditional in force, and is translated as such by almost all English versions.


Heb “And the priest shall see the infection and he shall shut up the infection seven days.”


Heb “to all which the leather was made into a handiwork.”


Heb “And if the priest sees and behold”; NASB “and indeed.”


Heb “a second seven days.”


Heb “and behold” (so KJV, ASV).


Heb “the infection has not changed its eye.” Smr has “its/his eyes,” as in vv. 5 and 37 , but here it refers to the appearance of the article of cloth or leather, unlike vv. 5 and 37 where there is a preposition attached and it refers to the eyes of the priest.


The terms “back side” and “front side” are the same as those used in v. 42 for the “back or front bald area” of a man’s head. The exact meaning of these terms when applied to articles of cloth or leather is uncertain. It could refer, for example, to the inside versus the outside of a garment, or the back versus the front side of an article of cloth or leather. See J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:814, for various possibilities.


Heb “And if the priest saw and behold….”


Heb “and he shall tear it from.”


Heb “And if”; NIV, NCV “But if”; NAB “If, however.”


Heb “and the infection turns aside from them.”


These are declarative Piel forms of the verbs טָהֵר ( taher ) and טָמֵא ( tame ’) respectively (cf. the notes on vv. 3 and 6 above).


Heb “and.” Here KJV, ASV use a semicolon; NASB begins a new sentence with “Now.”


The alternative rendering, “when it is reported to the priest” may be better in light of the fact that the priest had to go outside the camp. Since he or she had been declared “unclean” by a priest ( Lev 13:3 ) and was, therefore, required to remain outside the camp ( 13:46 ), the formerly diseased person could not reenter the camp until he or she had been declared “clean” by a priest (cf. Lev 13:6 for “declaring clean.”). See especially J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:831, who supports this rendering both here and in Lev 13:2 and 9 . B. A. Levine, however, prefers the rendering in the text ( Leviticus [JPSTC], 76 and 85). It is the most natural meaning of the verb (i.e., “to be brought” from בּוֹא [ bo ’, “to come”] in the Hophal stem, which means “to be brought” in all other occurrences in Leviticus other than 13:2, 9, and 14:2 ; see only 6:30; 10:18; 11:32; and 16:27 ), it suits the context well in 13:2 , and the rendering “to be brought” is supported by 13:7 b, “he shall show himself to the priest a second time.” Although it is true that the priest needed to go outside the camp to examine such a person, the person still needed to “be brought” to the priest there. The translation of vv. 2-3 employed here suggests that v. 2 introduces the proceeding and then v. 3 goes on to describe the specific details of the examination and purification.


Heb “and he shall be brought to the priest and the priest shall go out to from outside to the camp and the priest shall see [it].” The understood “it” refers to the skin infection itself (see the note on 13:3 above). The referent has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “And behold, the diseased infection has been healed from the diseased person.” The expression “diseased infection” has been translated as simply “infection” to avoid redundancy here in terms of English style.


The term rendered here “crimson fabric” consists of two Hebrew words and means literally, “crimson of worm” (in this order only in Lev 14:4, 6, 49, 51, 52 and Num 19:6 ; for the more common reverse order, “worm of crimson,” see, e.g., the colored fabrics used in making the tabernacle, Exod 25:4 , etc.). This particular “worm” is an insect that lives on the leaves of palm trees, the eggs of which are the source for a “crimson” dye used to color various kinds of cloth (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 86). That a kind of dyed “fabric” is intended, not just the dye substance itself, is made certain by the dipping of it along with the other ritual materials listed here into the blood and water mixture for sprinkling on the person being cleansed ( Lev 14:6 ; cf. also the burning of it in the fire of the red heifer in Num 19:6 ). Both the reddish color of cedar wood and the crimson colored fabric seem to correspond to the color of blood and may, therefore, symbolize either “life,” which is in the blood, or the use of blood to “make atonement” (see, e.g., Gen 9:4 and Lev 17:11 ). See further the note on v. 7 below.


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. 5 a). 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. 5 a, 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 14:4, 5 (i.e., “there shall be taken” and “there shall be slaughtered,” respectively). The latter option has been chosen here.


Heb “the one cleansing himself” (i.e., Hitpael participle of טָהֵר , taher , “to be clean”).


Heb “And the priest shall command and he shall slaughter.” See the note on “be taken up” (v. 4 ).


Heb “into a vessel of clay over living water.” The expression “living [i.e., ‘fresh’] water” (cf. Lev 14:50; 15:13 ; Num 19:17 ) refers to water that flows. It includes such water sources as artesian wells ( Gen 26:19 ; Song of Songs 4:15 ), springs ( Jer 2:13 , as opposed to cisterns; cf. 17:13 ), and flowing streams ( Zech 14:8 ). In other words, this is water that has not stood stagnant as, for example, in a sealed-off cistern. sn Although there are those who argue that the water and the blood rites are separate (e.g., E. S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus [OTL], 175-76), it is usually agreed that v. 5 b refers to the slaughtering of the bird in such a way that its blood runs into the bowl, which contained fresh water (see, e.g., N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers [NCBC], 74; G. J. Wenham, Leviticus [NICOT], 208; J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:836-38; cf. esp. Lev 14:51 b, “and dip them in the blood of the slaughtered bird and in the fresh water”). This mixture of blood and water was then to be sprinkled on the person being cleansed from the disease.


Heb “the live bird he [i.e., the priest] shall take it.” Although the MT has no ו ( vav , “and”) at the beginning of this clause, a few medieval Hebrew mss and Smr have one and the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate translate as if it is there. The “but” in the present translation reflects this text critical background, the object-first word order in the clause with the resumptive pronoun at the end, and the obvious contrast between the slaughtered bird in v. 5 and the live bird in v. 6 .


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


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.).


Heb “and he shall be clean” (so ASV). The end result of the ritual procedures in vv. 4-7 and the washing and shaving in v. 8 a is that the formerly diseased person has now officially become clean in the sense that he can reenter the community (see v. 8 b; contrast living outside the community as an unclean diseased person, Lev 13:46 ). There are, however, further cleansing rituals and pronouncements for him to undergo in the tabernacle as outlined in vv. 10-20 (see Qal “be[come] clean” in vv. 9 and 20 , Piel “pronounce clean” in v. 11 , and Hitpael “the one being cleansed” in vv. 11, 14, 17, 18, and 19 ). Obviously, in order to enter the tabernacle he must already “be clean” in the sense of having access to the community.


Heb “And it shall be on the seventh day.”


Heb “and he shall be clean” (see the note on v. 8 ).


The subject “he” probably refers to the formerly diseased person in this case (see the notes on Lev 1:5 a, 6a, and 9a).


This term is often rendered “fine flour,” but it refers specifically to wheat as opposed to barley (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 10) and, although the translation “flour” is used here, it may indicate “grits” rather than finely ground flour (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:179; see the note on Lev 2:1 ). The unit of measure is most certainly an “ephah” even though it is not stated explicitly (see, e.g., Num 28:5 ; cf. 15:4, 6, 8 ), and three-tenths of an ephah would amount to about a gallon, or perhaps one-third of a bushel (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 196; Milgrom, 845). Since the normal amount of flour for a lamb is one-tenth of an ephah ( Num 28:4-5 ; cf. 15:4 ), three-tenths is about right for the three lambs offered in Lev 14:10-20 .


A “log” ( לֹג , log ) of oil is about one-sixth of a liter, or one-third of a pint, or two-thirds of a cup.


The MT here is awkward to translate into English. It reads literally, “and the priest who pronounces clean (Piel participle of טָהֵר , taher ) shall cause to stand (Hiphil of עָמַד , ’ amad ) the man who is cleansing himself (Hitpael participle of טָהֵר ) and them” (i.e., the offerings listed in v. 10 ; the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity). Alternatively, the Piel of טָהֵר could be rendered “who performs the cleansing/purification” (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:827), perhaps even as a technical term for one who holds the office of “purification priest” (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 87). It is probably better, however, to retain the same meaning here as in v. 7 above (see the note there regarding the declarative Piel use of this verb).


Heb “And the priest shall take the one lamb.”


See the note on Lev 5:15 above. The primary purpose of the “guilt offering” ( אָשָׁם , ’ asham ) was to “atone” ( כִּפֶּר , kipper , “to make atonement,” see v. 18 below and the note on Lev 1:4 ) for “trespassing” on the Lord ’s “holy things,” whether sacred objects or sacred people. It is, therefore, closely associated with the reconsecration of the Lord ’s holy people as, for example, here and in the case of the corpse contaminated Nazirite ( Num 6:11 b-12). Since the nation of Israel was “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” to the Lord ( Exod 19:6 ; cf. the blood splashed on all the people in Exod 24:8 ), the skin diseased person was essentially a member of the “holy nation” who had been expelled from the community. Therefore, he or she had been desecrated and the guilt offering was essential to restoring him or her to the community. In fact, the manipulation of blood and oil in the guilt offering ritual procedure for the healed person (see vv. 14-18 below) is reminiscent of that employed for the ordination offering in the consecration of the holy Aaronic priests of the nation ( Exod 29:19-21 ; Lev 8:22-30 ).


Heb “wave them [as] a wave offering before the Lord ” (NAB similar). See the note on Lev 7:30 and the literature cited there. Other possible translations include “elevate them [as] an elevation offering before the Lord ” (cf. NRSV) or “present them [as] a presentation offering before the Lord .” To be sure, the actual physical “waving” of a male lamb seems unlikely, but some waving gesture may have been performed in the presentation of the offering (cf. also the “waving” of the Levites as a “wave offering” in Num 8:11 , etc.).


Heb “And he shall slaughter.”


Heb “in the place which.”


Since the priest himself presents this offering as a wave offering (v. 12 ), it would seem that the offering is already in his hands and he would, therefore, be the one who slaughtered the male lamb in this instance rather than the offerer. Smr and LXX make the second verb “to slaughter” plural rather than singular, which suggests that it is to be taken as an impersonal passive (see J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:852).


Heb “the guilt offering, it [is] to the Lord .” Regarding the “guilt offering,” see the note on Lev 5:15 .


Heb “and the priest shall put [literally ‘give’] on the lobe of the ear of the one being cleansed, the right one.”


The term for “big toe” ( בֹּהֶן , bohen ) is the same as that for “thumb.” It refers to the larger appendage on either the hand or the foot.