The purification of the leper (ch. Leviticus 14:1-32)

The ceremonies to be observed are of two kinds:

(1)  before the leper is brought into the camp,

(a)  by the priest (Leviticus 14:2-7),

(b)  by the leper (Leviticus 14:8),

  (2)  after the leper is readmitted to the camp, but remaining outside his tent seven days,

(c)  by the leper on the seventh day (Leviticus 14:9),

(d)  the sacrificial ritual on the eighth day (Leviticus 14:10-20),

(e)  modification for the poor leper (Leviticus 14:21-32).

The leper was regarded (1) as one dead (see on Leviticus 13:45 f.), (2) as unclean, (3) as smitten of God: hence the ceremonial indicated (1) restoration to life, (2) removal of uncleanness, (3) readmission to God’s presence.

(1) is thought to represent the older rite, while Leviticus 14:14-20 are later, giving more detail and laying greater stress on religious motives.

The purification of the leper (ch. Leviticus 14:1-32)

The ceremonies to be observed are of two kinds:

(1)  before the leper is brought into the camp,

(a)  by the priest (Leviticus 14:2-7),

(b)  by the leper (Leviticus 14:8),

  (2)  after the leper is readmitted to the camp, but remaining outside his tent seven days,

(c)  by the leper on the seventh day (Leviticus 14:9),

(d)  the sacrificial ritual on the eighth day (Leviticus 14:10-20),

(e)  modification for the poor leper (Leviticus 14:21-32).

The leper was regarded (1) as one dead (see on Leviticus 13:45 f.), (2) as unclean, (3) as smitten of God: hence the ceremonial indicated (1) restoration to life, (2) removal of uncleanness, (3) readmission to God’s presence.

(1) is thought to represent the older rite, while Leviticus 14:14-20 are later, giving more detail and laying greater stress on religious motives.

3. The priest goes outside to meet the leper; probably signs of convalescence have already been notified to the priest, which have satisfied him, and he now declares the plague to be healed.

4–7. The priest was to see that two living clean birds were brought. The Heb. word is ẓippôr, which is used of the birds of Abraham’s sacrifice (Genesis 15:10) and of clean birds generally (Deuteronomy 14:11). In Psalm 84:3 [Hebrews 4], Psalm 102:7 [Hebrews 8] it is translated ‘sparrow,’ and A.V. mg. of Leviticus 14:4 has ‘sparrows,’ following the traditional interpretation, and Vulg. These birds were employed in a ceremony which was without the camp, and the blood was not brought to the altar.

cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop] The cedar and hyssop were bound together by a scarlet band of wool. From 1 Kings 4:33 it appears that cedar and hyssop were regarded as two extremes in respect of size among trees: the cedar is a symbol of health and vigour (Psalm 92:12); it is used figuratively of the great ones of the earth (Jdg 9:15; Isaiah 14:8; Isaiah 37:24), not without reference to the haughtiness of those occupying such high positions (Isaiah 2:13; Ezekiel 31:3; Ezekiel 31:10). Hence some Jewish writers have seen in the cedar a figure of pride punished by a visitation of leprosy, while the hyssop signified that humility which was necessary to obtain forgiveness, and the removal of the stroke.

The cedar is noted for its durability, and the oil of the cedar was employed as a preservative; the Egyptians used it for embalming. This power of arresting decay may be regarded as akin to that shewn in restoring the tainted flesh of the leper. The scarlet colour has been generally taken as representing the blood, or the life which has been bestowed on one who was regarded as dead (Numbers 12:12). The hyssop seems to have been chosen for the purpose of sprinkling (Leviticus 14:7, cp. Exodus 12:22). The Mishna orders that the cedar wood should be a cubit in length, and that the hyssop shall not be Greek or Roman hyssop, or desert hyssop, or any hyssop with a distinctive name (Tal. Bab. Neg. xiv. § 6).

5. in an earthen vessel over running water] The word ‘running’ is somewhat misleading. The Heb. expression is ‘living water,’ i.e. water from a spring. It was to be put into the vessel over which the bird was killed: the water served as a medium for conveying the blood of the slain bird (Leviticus 14:6); so the ashes of the red heifer were mixed with water (Numbers 19:9; Numbers 19:17).

7. seven times] As in Leviticus 14:27; Leviticus 14:51 and so in Leviticus 4:6; Leviticus 4:17, Leviticus 8:11, Leviticus 16:14; Leviticus 16:19; Numbers 19:4. Cp. 2 Kings 5:10 and Art. Number in HDB. iii. specially p. 565.

let go the living bird] The similarity between the two birds and the two goats brought on the Day of Atonement has been noted by Jewish and Christian commentators; it is necessary to point out the differences. On that Day the high priest officiated; the slain goat was a Sin-Offering, and on the goat that was sent away all the sins of the children of Israel were solemnly laid. The whole service was at the sanctuary, its inner shrine was entered on that day only; and there was no physical contact between the two goats. The two birds brought for the cleansing of the leper were respectively killed and set free outside the camp by an ordinary priest; the blood of the slain bird was not brought near the altar nor treated sacrificially, but applied to the living bird which was let go. The ritual is not markedly Hebraic, but antique in character, and similar to that followed by tribes whose ideas about the removal of impurity are in the most elementary stage. Some parts of it were probably in use among Semites before the age of Moses, as an inheritance from a distant past. The time when these rites were adopted into Israel’s cultus cannot be fixed with certainty; when they became part of that system which requires holiness from the worshippers of a holy God, their significance was spiritualized, and the superstitious beliefs of an earlier age were eliminated, though not entirely forgotten.

We find among primitive peoples that sicknesses are in many cases transferred to a bird or beast which thus becomes a kind of scapegoat (Frazer, G. B.2 iii. 15 f., 101 f.) or are sent away in boats (ib. 97 f. Cp. Rob.-Sm. Rel. Sem. 422, Berth. ad loc.).

The Heb. word for ‘cedar’ includes, besides the Lebanon variety, juniper and some sorts of pine; the Gk. κέδρος has a correspondingly broad significance. The ‘hyssop’ is supposed to be a kind of marjoram; the plant now known as hyssop does not grow in Egypt or Syria. For further details see Dillm. in loc. and Arts. Juniper, Cedar, in HDB. and Enc. Bib.

The cedar is regarded as a sacred tree. Instances of its use are given in Frazer, G. B.3 49 f., where it is described as Juniperus excelsa.

8. The person to be cleansed now began to take part in the ceremonial. He must wash his clothes, shave and wash himself; he was then admitted into the camp, but not allowed to enter his own dwelling.

9. On the seventh day, after repeating the cleansing processes of the first, he was fit to take part in the service of the sanctuary.

10. On the following (the eighth) day he brings his sacrifice to the usual place, the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. In the Temple the leper, after bathing in a chamber at the N.W. corner of the Court of the Women, was brought to the gate of Nicanor, between the Court of the Women and the Court of Israel, where he presented his offerings.

tenth parts of an ephah] See on Leviticus 23:17. For ‘parts’ A.V. has ‘deals,’ a substantive of the same meaning, but now surviving as such only in the common phrase, ‘a great deal,’ although the verb is still in ordinary use. Cp. dole, and the German Teil, portion.

log] a liquid measure approximately equal to an English pint.

The ritual here enjoined is peculiar:

(1) The first offering is a Guilt-Offering—a he-lamb.

(2) The whole lamb is waved with the log of oil before the Lord.

(3) The blood of the sacrifice and the oil are applied to the leper with a ceremonial similar to that used at the consecration of the priests (Leviticus 8:12; Leviticus 8:23 f., Leviticus 8:30).

The he-lamb was of the first year, and younger than the ram usually brought for a Guilt-Offering; the waving of the whole animal was unusual; certain parts only of a sacrifice were waved, and the ceremony of waving was not practised with the Guilt-Offering and Sin-Offering. So that in respect of the animal employed, the act of waving, and the matter waved, this sacrifice was different from the ordinary Guilt-Offering.

The Nazirite who had been defiled by a dead body brought a Sin-Offering, a Burnt-Offering, and a Guilt-Offering; they were offered in this order, and no special regulations about the Guilt-Offering are given (Numbers 6:10-12). But in the case of the leper, the fact that the Guilt-Offering is brought first, with an accompanying ritual of marked significance, invests this sacrifice with a special importance and distinguishes it from the Guilt-Offering brought by the Nazirite. The Guilt-Offering with its accompanying ritual is the prominent feature in the leper’s sanctuary service. It seems to imply that the disease of leprosy had removed him who had been smitten from the ‘kingdom of priests’ (Exodus 19:6); that a re-consecration was necessary, before he could again take his place among his brethren. But it may also mean that leprosy was thought to imply some sin for which atonement must be made by fine or compensation.

The reason why this sacrifice should be a Guilt-Offering is not apparent. The distinctive character of the Guilt-Offering was that it involved restitution for wrong done, whether in respect of ‘the holy things of the Lord’ (Leviticus 5:15), or against a neighbour (Leviticus 6:2 f.). As the Nazirite had vowed a period of separation, it might be considered that the defilement of that separation (Numbers 6:12), though involuntary, was a wrong done in respect of ‘the holy things of the Lord’; but it seems doubtful whether the leper’s enforced absence from the sanctuary during the period of his uncleanness can be so regarded. If it is urged that every Israelite in virtue of his priesthood (Exodus 19:6) is dedicated to the service of God, then a Guilt-Offering would be required after any prolonged illness, and after cases of lengthened uncleanness such as those mentioned in chs. 12 and 15; but no Guilt-Offering is prescribed for these persons. Can there be here a remnant of some older practice of which no certain traces survive? The Heb. word ’âshâm, used for the Guilt-Offering in P, is applied in the older literature to certain offerings and fines (1 Samuel 6:3; 2 Kings 12:17). Was an ’âshâm or money payment required in earlier times on the recovery of a leper? This would explain the demand for a Guilt-Offering in P.

12. and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord] The offerer usually took part in the waving; according to some, this act took place where the leper stood, and that he assisted in the ceremony; another view was that it took place before the altar, and the leper did not assist. See Appendix IV (Wave-Offering), pp. 183 ff.

13. in the place where they kill the sin offering and the burnt offering] For the Burnt-Offering see ch. Leviticus 1:11; for the Sin-Offering, Leviticus 6:25; and for the Guilt-Offering, Leviticus 7:2.

in the place of the sanctuary] i.e. in the court, not in the tabernacle.

14. In N.T. times the leper put his head, hand, and foot through the gate of Nicanor and the priest applied the blood and the oil. Two priests officiated; one caught the blood in a bowl and threw it on the sides of the altar; the other received some of the blood in his hand and applied it to the leper (Neg. xiv. §§ 8–10). The blood of the Guilt-Offering was applied in the same way in which the blood of the Ram of consecration was applied to the priests (Leviticus 8:23 f.), but the whole ceremony was performed by one person.

15. and the priest shall take of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand] Heb. and pour it into the left hand of the priest. The traditional interpretation is that the one priest poured the oil into the palm of the other priest (see note on Leviticus 14:14), but the Mishna adds ‘if he pours it into his own palm, it is allowed.’ The procedure, as described in EVV is supported by authority.

21–32. The poor man’s offerings. The Sin-Offering and Burnt-Offering are modified; birds may be brought as in Leviticus 1:14, Leviticus 5:7, and the amount of the Meal-Offering is reduced, but the Guilt-Offering remains the same; a further indication that this sacrifice is the most important feature of the rite.

Leprosy in houses (33–53)

Nothing definite is known about these appearances on the walls of a house, which are here described as leprosy. It was regarded as a special visitation of God (Leviticus 14:34, ‘I put the plague’); the Jews believed that the plague was peculiar to Palestine and the chosen people, and was not found in the houses of foreigners. The owner of the house must say ‘There seemeth to me …’ (Leviticus 14:35): the decision whether the house is leprous rests with the priest. The order to empty the house before the priest comes to inspect shews that there is no fear of contagion. It has been suggested that the appearances were due to damp, or decay, or the growth of some vegetable matter. The diagnosis is similar to that for leprosy in man; the remedy is to remove the stones in which the plague is, and to scrape and plaister the house. If the plague is not stayed, the house must be pulled down. The method of purification if the house be pronounced clean is the same as that prescribed for the leper in Leviticus 14:4-7. Further regulations are found in Negâim, chs. 12, 13.

54–57. A summary of the cases dealt with in chs. 13, 14. Special sections have also their closing verses, see Leviticus 13:59, Leviticus 14:32.