Jewish Quarterly Review
(1913-14) 357-418.
Public Domain. Digitally prepared
by Ted Hildebrandt (2004)
THE SO-CALLED ‘LEPROSY’ LAWS
AN ANALYSIS OF
LEVITICUS, CHAPTERS 13 and 14.
By MORRIS JASTROW,
I
THE composite character of the two
chapters--Leviticus
13
and 14--comprising the laws and regulations for the
diagnosis
and treatment of various skin diseases, and of
suspicious
spots appearing in garments and houses, together
with
the purification rites, has long been recognized.1 Indeed,
the
mere enumeration of the variety of subjects treated
of
in these two chapters, which form a little code by
themselves,
furnishes a presumption in favour of the view
that
the chapters represent a gradual growth. A closer
study
of the two chapters not only confirms this pre-
sumption,
but also shows that the growth betrays an
even
more complicated process than is the case in other
little
groups of laws and regulations, such as Lev. 1-5.
We
not only find that the two chapters may be subdivided
into
numerous smaller sections, each representing a supple-
ment
added to the basic stock of the little code, but that
within
these sections, glosses, comments, and illustrations
are
introduced which point to a treatment of the older
Hebrew
codes, not unlike that accorded to the later Code of
1 See especially Baentsch's
remarks on p.364 of his Kommentar zu den
Buchern Exodus und Leviticus
357
358 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Judaism,
known as the Mishnah, and which by the addition
of
a steadily-growing commentary and continuous elabora-
tion,
known as the Gemara, grew into the Talmud. In
other
words, we can distinguish in Leviticus 13 and 14
(as
in other groups within the Priestly Code) elements
which
correspond to the division between Mishnah and
Gemara
in the great compilation of Rabbinical Judaism,
and
we can also trace in the growth of the two chapters
the
same process which produced the Gemara as a super-
structure
to the Mishnah. The intrinsic importance of the
two
chapters, and the frequency with which they have
been
treated because of their medical interest,2 justify
the
endeavour to carry the analysis by a renewed study
somewhat
further than has yet been done, particularly
as
this analysis is a conditio sine qua non
for an under-
standing
of the medical aspects of the chapters. While
it
is not my purpose to discuss in detail these medical
aspects,
I shall touch upon them at the close of this article,
chiefly
with a view of showing the manner in which they
should
be considered, and also to furnish the reasons for
the
conviction that I have gained that physicians who
have
occupied themselves with these two chapters have
approached
them from a wrong starting-point, and hence
have
reached conclusions which, are correspondingly
erroneous.
To put it bluntly, before discussing the
fundamental
question whether sara’at is ‘leprosy’
or not,
one
must settle which verses of the two chapters deal
with
sara’at.
2 See the literature is
Baentsch'a Kommentar, p. 364, and in
Munch's
Die Zara'ath der Hebr.
Bibel,
to which further additions may be made, such
as
Jay F. Schamberg's article on ‘The Nature of the Leprosy of the Bible’,
Phila.
Polyclinic. VII (1898), Nov. 19-26, or Biblical
World. March. 1899;
pp.
162-9. See further, note 144.
THE
SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 359
II.
In a formal--not a documentary--analysis
of the two
chapters,
we may distinguish--leaving aside headings and
subscripts--the
following:3
(1) 13.2-46, diagnosis and treatment
of various symptoms
of
pathological phenomena on the skin: (a) txeW; (se’et),
(b)
tHaPasa (sappahat), (c) tr,h,Ba (baheret), (d) tfaracA (sara’at),
(e)
NyHiw;
(sehin), (f) hvAk;mi
(mikwah), g) qt,n, (netek), (k) qhaBo
(bohak), (i) Hareqe (kere'ah), (h) HaBeGi (gibbea’ah).
(2) 13.47-59, sara’at in garments.
(3) 14.1-31, purification ritual at the time
when the
healing
process of sara’at on persons was
complete.
(4). 14.32-47, diagnosis and treatment of sara’at ap-
pearing
in houses.
(5) 14. 48-53, purification ritual for the case
of sara’at
in
houses.
It appears, then, that suspicious marks or spots--to
use
the
vaguest and most indefinite kind of terms--may appear
on
persons, garments (in stuffs), and in houses, and that
in
connexion with each of these categories the diagnosis,
treatment,
and purification ritual are set forth. Throughout
the
two chapters, the term (nega’ sara'at)
is constantly
introduced,
and by the side of this fuller term two abbre-
viated
expressions sara’at and nega’.4
3 In order to make the results of the investigation
accessible to others
than
specialists in the Old Testament. I transliterate most of the Hebrew
terms
introduced.
4 nega’
sara’at, Lev. 13.2, 3, 9, 20, 25, 27,
47, 49, 59; 14.3, 34, 54;
Lev.
13.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 22, 29, 30,
31, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52,
53,
54-58; 14. 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 48; sara’at, Lev. 13.8, 11, 12, 13,
15,
25, 30, 42, 43, 51, 52; 14.7, 44, 55, 57.
The synonymity of the three
expressions.
is shown by the Greek text, which occasionally has sara’at,
e.
g. 13-20, where the Hebrew has nega’
sara’at, or adds sara’at, e. g.
13.29,
where
the Hebrew has merely nega’. The word
nega’ (‘mark' or ‘spot’)
360 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Taking up the first section, one is struck by
the large
number
of medical terms introduced, supplementary to
sara’at. In connexion with each
term nega’ is used, which
is
thus shown to be a general term for any kind of a disease
of
he skin, indicated by a mark or marks. Clearly these
supplementary
terms represent attempts to differentiate
been
pathological phenomena which in an earlier, less
scientific
age were either grouped under sara'at
or under
the
general designation of 'marks' (nega'im).
A closer
inspection
of the second verse of the thirteenth chapter
furnishes
the safe starting-point for a correct analysis.
The
verse reads as follows: ‘If a man has on the skin of
his
flesh a swelling (se’et),5
growth (sappahat),6 or a
bright
spot
(baheret),7 and it becomes
on the skin of his flesh
a
nega’ sara’at, he is brought to Aaron
the priest, or to
one
of his sons, the priests.’ The name Aaron occurs in
this
verse only. Throughout the two chapters merely 'the
priest'
is used. We may, therefore, cut out ‘Aaron’ as
well
as the phrase ‘or one of his sons the priests’ as, com-
ments--corresponding
to our foot-notes to explain what
is
meant by the term ‘the priests’. In the
second place,
the
repetition of ‘on the skin of his flesh’ is open to
has
the general force of a ‘plague’ or a ‘disease’, from the stem naga'
‘to
strike down’. The etymology of sara'at
is somewhat obscure, though
indications
point likewise to the meaning 'strike' for the underlying stem
whit
would make sara'at a general term
like nega', and not a specific
designation.
5 se’et
from nasa', 'to raise', clearly
indicates a rising on the skin, i. e. a
swelling
of some kind.
6 sappahat,
of which wispahat (vers. 6, 7, 8 is
a. synonym, from sapah
'to
add, supplement', refers to something added to the skin, i. e. a growth.
7 baheret,
from bahar, ‘to shine’, is an
inflamed bit of skin, i. e. a shining
spot
(to use an indefinite term), intended to describe the prominent feature
of
an inflammation.
THE SO-CALLED ' LEPROSY' LAWS-JASTROW 361
suspicion,
which is reinforced by the awkward construction
lenega' sara’at, i. e. 'to a nega’ sara’at'. A glance at the
various
commentators will show us the difficulties involved
in
getting a satisfactory meaning.8 If now we remove
the
three terms 'swelling', 'growth', and 'bright spot',
and
assume that the verse in its original form spoke of
the
sara'at only, the construction becomes
perfectly simple,
to
wit: 'If a man has on the skin of his flesh a sara'at
mark
(i. e. nega' sara'at), and he is brought
to the priest.
The
proof of the correctness of this view is furnished by
the
third verse, which reads: 'And the priest sees the mark
(nega') on the skin of his flesh, and the
hair at the mark has
turned
white, and the mark (nega') appears
deeper than
the
skin of his flesh, then it is a sara'at
mark, and9 he shall
declare
him unclean.' Here, then, we have the beginning
of
the chapter in its original form a diagnosis of what
constitutes
sara'at, and a simple means of
determining
whether
a man has sara'at or not. It is just
the kind of
diagnosis
that we may expect in an age in which medical
knowledge
is based on observation merely.
With these two verses as a starting-point, we
can proceed
without
much difficulty to pick out other verses which
belong
to the older stratum of the chapter. Verses 9-13
8 To translate as Strack, Baentsch, and
others, 'and it develops in the
skin
of his flesh to a nega' sara'at',
meets with a fatal objection through
the
circumsance that it is a nega' sara’at
only after the priest has pronounced
it
as such, as indicated in ver. 3.
9 The text adds, 'and the priest shall see
it', which is superfluous, since
the
words 'and the priest sees' stand at the beginning of the verse. Either
the
repetition is the addition of some pedantic scribe who wanted to make
it
perfectly clear that the words 'he shall declare him unclean' refer to
the
priests declaration, or it is a gloss that has slipped into the wrong
place.
362 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
furrnish
further details regarding the sara'at.
They read,
exclusive
of glosses and comments, as follows:
'If there is a sara'at mark on a man, and he is brought
to
the priest: and the priest sees that there is a white
swelling
(seen on the skin that has turned the hair white,10
is
a chronic11 sara’at in the
skin of his flesh, and the
priest
shall declare him unclean.12 But if the sara’at
steadily
spreads in the skin until the sara’at
covers the
entire
skin,13 and the priest sees that the sara'at covers
the
entire flesh,14 [then the priest] shall declare the mark
clean.15
10 The text adds, anticipating the
diagnosis in the next secaon (14-17),
‘and
there is raw flesh (basar hay) in the
swelling'. As a synonym to
basar hay, another version or a
commentator used the term (hyaH;mi mihyah)
‘a
raw spot'. A later scribe embodied the synonym in the text which thus
became
redundant.
11 tn,w,On (nosenet, literally 'of old standing', which I believe conveys
the
idea that we attach to 'chronic’. The ordinary rendering 'recurrent'
misses
the nuance and is without warrant.
12 Additions . 1) 'without shutting him
in', harking back to the ‘shutting
in’
as a test in the case of baheret (vers. 4-5; (a) 'for he is unclean',
xUh xmeFA yKi, a second comment to
explain why he is not shut in. These
brief
comments are just in the style of the Gemara. If amplified, vers. 10-11
cold
easily be put in the form of a Mishnah and a Gemara as follows;
The
law is that if the priest sees that a white swelling on the skin has
turned
the hair white, it is a chronic sara'at.
Now since in the case of
a
‘white shining spot’ it is said (Lev. 13. 4) that the victim is shut in for
seven
days, you might suppose that in the case of a 'white swelling' this
should
also be done. It is not required. Why not? Because a 'white
selling'
of itself makes him unclean.
13 Two comments are added: (1) namely, 'the
mark (extends) from his
head
to his feet'; (2) 'according to the complete inspection of the priest',
i.e.
it is only upon the inspection of the priest, not upon the report of the
victim
or of any other person, that the diagnosis of the whole body being
covered
with the we can be established.
14 Instead of, all his flesh' (OrWAB;-lKA) the Greek version has ‘all
his skin’.
15 Two glosses: (1) ‘all turned white’ to the
word ‘flesh’; (2) 'he is
clean';--the
final decision. This decision, 'he is clean' or ‘he is unclean',
THE SO-CALLED ‘LEPROSY’ LAWS—JASTROW 363
It is clear that we have here (vers. 9-11) a
second
diagnosis
involving, just as the first, the determination of
the
question whether the suspicious mark is a genuine
sara'at or not; and since in
the original form of the
diagnosis
the decisive indication is, as in the first diagnosis,
the
change of colour in the hair to white, the two cases
would
be identical but for the addition in the second case
of
the symptom of a 'white swelling’. This
'white swelling',
it
would seem, is the basis for the decision that it is a case
of
chronic sara'at’, as against a simple
form of sara'at in
the
first diagnosis, where we have the contrast to the
'swelling'
on the mark expressed as 'deeper than the skin',
i.
e. high-relief in one case and bas-relief in the other.
Placing
the two decisions side by side, we can follow the
process
which gradually led to tie present complicated
form
of the two chapters. The introduction of the 'swelling'
as
a new factor16 suggested a consideration of further
symptoms
appearing in the skin, and accordingly the first
diagnosis
or decision was amplified (ver. 2) by the addition
of
(a) a sappahat (tHaPasa), i. e. 'growth'; (b) baheret, i. e.
‘bright
spot’; and this naturally leads in turn (vers. 4, 5)
to
a diagnosis of baheret and (vers..
6-8) of what consti-
tutes
a mispahat, involving in both cases
the determination
after
a test or after a double test whether it may develop
into
a genuine sara'at or is a harmless
manifestation.
To the second decision, however,
there is also added
(vers.
12, 13) a diagnosis of a case in which the mark
is
frequently added in Lev. 13. and apparently as a quick means for reference
on
the part of the priests, who would naturally consult the legal compila-
tions
when cases were brought before them.
16 The 'swelling' se’it in ver. 2 thus appears only upon
the second
diagnosis.
364 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
suspected
of being sara'at turns out to be
harmless or, to
use
the technical language of the decision, 'it is clean'.
The
diagnosis rests manifestly again upon pure empiricism:
a
mark spreading over the entire body is an innocent
rash,
or at all events 'clean'.
We thus have as a part of the original form of
the
sara'at Torah three decisions:
(a) 'unclean', i. e. genuine
sara'at, in case the hair at the
mark turns white and 'the
mark
is deeper than the skin; (b) ‘unclean' and 'chronic',
in
case the hair turns white and there is a white swelling,
i.
e. the mark is higher than the skin ; (c) 'clean', if the
mark
spreads over the whole body. Verses 14-17, detailing
the
case in which 'raw flesh' appears on the skin, evidently
do
of belong to the original part of the sara’at
Torah17
but
represent an addition of the same nature as vers. 24,
due
to a further question raised in the course of the
discussion
on the three original ordinances, to wit, how
about
the case when the flesh becomes raw at the suspicious
spot?
The 'Gemara' to the original decisions
answers.
(vers.
14, 15) that the moment raw flesh appears the man
is
unclean, but that as in the other cases the decision must
be
rendered by a priest and after an inspection.18 Just as
in
the Talmud one question leads to the other, so in the
implied
discussion on the Biblical laws together with the
decisions
by the priests or by the later redactors of early
codes,
the situation is further complicated by the question:
How
about the case in which the raw flesh disappears and
17 See above, note to, where it is
suggested that the term ‘raw flesh’
and
is synonym mihyah, at the end of ver.
10, are additions due to the com-
bination
of the original decisions with the superimposed ones, i. e. of a
Mishnah
with a Gemara.
18 The words (ver. 15) 'the raw flesh is
unclean' represent a further
ampliying
gloss.
THE SO-CALLED ‘LEPROSY’ LAWS--JASTROW 365
the
spot19 becomes white? The answer is ‘clean’ upon the
inspection
and the declaration of the priest.
The balance of the chapter, with the exception
of
vers.
45, 46, represents further additions to the original
Torah
verses 18-39 taking up various skin troubles sug-
gested
by the consideration of the sara’at.
Within this
supplement,
verses 18-23 take up boils, verses 24-28 burns,
raw
flesh, bright marks, &c., verses 29-37 marks on the
head
or beard (netek), verses 38-9 very
white marks (bohak),
and
40-44 baldness of the head and the dropping off of the
hairs
of the eyebrows accompanied by the appearance of
suspicious
marks. With ver. 47 an entirely new subject--
marks
on garments or stuffs--is introduced, which is dis-
cussed
up to the end of the chapter. These references,
therefore,
are entirely independent sections, so that the
Mishnah
and Gemara for sara’at on the skin of
a man
or
of a woman ends with ver. 44. The last
two verses
of
this section (45-6) represent, I venture to think, a part
again
of the original sara’at Torah. They
read as follows
‘And the one afflicted with sara’at20 who has a mark,
his
garment shall be torn and his hair shall grow wild,21
and
he shall cover the moustache22 and cry "unclean,
unclean".
As long as he has the spot he shall be unclean;23
outside
of the camp shall be his dvelling.'24
19 The word ha-nega’ must be supplied after j`Pah;n, in ver. 16, just as it
is
found in ver. 17.
20 sarua’
(faUrcA),
i. e. the one who has sara'at of
which mesora’ ( frAcom;),
the
pu'al participle (Lev. 14. 3) is a synonym, and the more common term
occurring
fifteen times as against five occurrences of sarua'.
21 The tearing of the garments (srePA) and he growth of the
hair (fraPA)
are
signs
of mourning, hence forbidden to priest (Lev. 10. 6; 21. 10).
22 MPAWA (sapham) ‘the lip beard’, correctly rendered by the Greek version
as
mi<stac in 2 Sam. 19. 25.
23 The text has a superfluous 'he is
unclean’, perhaps a misplaced gloss.
24 The words 'he shall dwell apart' represent
again an addition with
366 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
The last verse of the chapter contains the subscript,
and
it is probable that the first part of the verse, ‘This is
the
law of the sara’at mark', belonged to
the original form
of
the section, and was subsequently amplified into the
subscript
for the section on marks on garments. Be this
as
it may, we have at the beginning of the fourteenth
chapter
the second part of the original Torah, dealing with
the
purification or dismissal of the one whose mark has
healed.
This part, covering 14. 2-8a, reads:
‘This the law of the one who has had sara'at, on
the
day of his purification25 when the priest has none to
(the
place) outside of the camp, and has seen that the
sara'at mark of the sarua’ is healed.26 Then the
priest
shall
order two living birds27 to be taken for the one to be
purified,
[and cedar wood and scarlet thread and hyssop;]
and
the priest shall order the one bird to be killed over
a
view of adapting the decision to later social conditions when people dwelt
in
cities and not in camps. The addition is an answer to the question put
in
the style of the Gemara: 'How about the case of a sarua' who lives in
a
city?’ The general principle is in reply
enunciated that the stricken
individual
must ‘dwell apart’, away from the habitations of his fellows.
In
similar fashion the Greek text to Lev. 14. 8, by changing outside of
his
tent to 'outside of his house', adapts the older law to later conditions.
See
below, p. 375, note 45.
25 The addition ' and he shall be brought
unto the priest' is again added
as
a Gemara to adapt the law to the later conditions when the diseased
person
is merely isolated, and naturally must be brought to the priest. In
the
earlier social stage, however, when the diseased dwells outside of the
camp,
the priest goes to the place outside of the camp where the sarua'
dwells,
and where the purification ritual is carried out, be it noted not in
a
sanctuary.
26 The more natural
construction would be: -fgn,mi
faUrcAha xPAr;ni hn.ehiv;
tfaracAha instead of faUrcAha-Nmi
tfaracAha-fga,n, xPAr;ni hn.ehiv;.
27 Additions: (a) ‘clean’,
and (b) then 'cedar wood, scarlet thread, and
hyssop'.
THE SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 367
an
earthen pot28 at running water;29 and the living bird
he
shall dip into the blood of the slaughtered bird,30 and
he shall sprinkle over the one to be purified
seven times
and
declare him clean, and send off the living bird into
the
open.31 And the one purified
shall wash his garments,
and
shave all his hair, and wash in water, and after that
come
to the camp.'
Simple and primitive in character as this ritual
appears
to
be, it is possible by a further analysis to detect several
component
elements pointing to the combination in the
ritual
itself of features that do not necessarily belong
together.
In the first place, the introduction of 'the cedar
28 i. e. slaughtered so that the blood
drops into an earthen pot.
29 MyyiHa Myima ‘living water', which I
take here in the sense of ‘running
water'.
i.e. at a stream, just as in the Babylonian-Assyrian purification
ritual
water from streams was used; e.g. Maklu Series, ed. Knudtzon,
Tablet
VII. 116, 'pure water of the deep which springs up in Eridu', or
Cun. Texts, XVII, Pl. 38, 30-34,
'take an earthen vessel which has come
from
a large kiln, at the meeting of the streams draw water', &c. Cf. also
Haupt,
Sumer.-Akkad. Keilsthrift, p. 9o,
III, 3-4, 'pure water, clear water,
sparkling
water', all in connexion with incantation and purification rituals.
Langdon
Transactions of the Third International
Congress for the Hist. of
Religious. I, 249) has called
attention to the fact that what he calls ‘services
for
private devotion’ were performed frequently by the banks of a river.
The
expression 'living water' was also extended to waters flowing into
a
well Gen. 26. 19; Jer. 2. 13; 17.13, but in the ritual I believe that
‘running
water’ is always intended; so, e.g., Num. 19. 17. The use of
MyyiHa Myima in Lev. 15. 13 is
inaccurate, and the Greek (Codd. BA fin, omits
Myy.iHa reading 'he shall wash his body in water',
as throughout the chapter
verses 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 21, 27, and elsewhere.
30 The awkward construction of the first half
of verse 6, 'the living bird
he
shall take it', and its incongruity with the second half of the verse betray
attempts
at combination and re-editing. I believe that the verse originally
read:
hmAUHw;.ha rOPci.ha MdaB; hyAHaha rOPciha-tx, lbamAv;, to which an amplifying
gloss
added Myy.iHaha Myim.aha lfa.
31 Literally. 'over the face of the field',
in the sense of allowing it to fly
away.
368 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
wood,
scarlet thread, and hyssop' has no apparent con-
nexion
with the ritual of the two birds. Outside of our
passage
we encounter these three objects together, (a) in
the
ritual for 'atoning' the house that has been affected
by
marks (Lev. 14. 49-53), which ritual is bodily taken
over
from our passage, and, therefore, has no independent
significance,
and (b) in the ceremony of the red heifer
(Num.
19. 6) where ‘the cedar wood, scarlet thread, and
hyssop’
are thrown into the ‘burning heap of the heifer’--
not
even used for sprinkling, as is implied in the sara’at
ritual.
The objects do not in fact seem to serve
any
particular
purpose, and the ritual in all three cases is
complete
without them. The use of the hyssop alone
(Num.
19. 14) in the case of the purification of the house
and
contents or furnishings belonging to some one who has
become
unclean through contact with a corpse or a grave,
in
which case the hyssop is dipped into water by 'a clean
man',
and sprinkled over the tent, the furniture and the
inmates,
shows that the main idea connected with hyssop
is
cleansing.32 The cedar wood
in the sara'at and in the
‘red
heifer’ ritual appears to be a subsequent addition,
both
hyssop and cedar wood suggesting by their fragrance
purification,
like the burning of frankincense which in
the
case of minhah or cereal offering, is
entirely burnt on
the
altar.33 The scarlet thread, presumably for tying
the
mass together, introduces a further symbolism by
nature
of the red colour,34 into which, however, we need
32 Note also the use of hyssop in Exod. 12.
22, where the ‘purification’
idea
passes over into that of ‘protection’.
33 e. g. Lev. 2. 2, whereas of the meal and
oil, and subsequently of the
wine,
only a handful is offered, while the rest is given to the priest.
34 Cf. Isa. 1. 18, 'if
your sins be red as scarlet', &c., suggested by
a
Jewish commentator in the Mikraot Gedolot.
THE
SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 369
not
enter here. The hyssop35 and cedar wood being thus
associated
with a cleansing process of a distinctive character,
whereas
the use to which the two birds are put is purely
symbolical,
the thought naturally suggests itself that hyssop
and
cedar wood were employed in the case of the person
afflicted
to afford him bodily relief--in other words, they
formed
part of the medical treatment in an early cultural
stage,
and on this account were combined with a ceremony
intended
to transfer the disease from the individual to an
animal--in
this instance a 'scape-bird'. That manifestly
is
the purpose to be served by the bird, to be sent off at
large
carrying with it the sara’at. We thus have two
distinct
ideas introduced into the purification ritual in its
present
form: (a) a quasi-curative ceremony, and
(b) a
transfer
of the disease. This combination further suggests
that
this part of the ritual itself was originally intended
actually
to free the afflicted from the sara’at,
and by the
conservative
force of established custom was retained as an
ingredient
of a later 'atoning'36 ritual
through the blood
of
a sacrificial animal. This double intent is confirmed
by
the usage of rheFa.m.ila in Lev. 14. 4, and 7
for 'the one
to
be cleansed',37 whereas in ver. 8 it is 'the one who has
been
purified'. We thus obtain three distinct ceremonies
(a)
a primitive well-known method of exorcising disease
by
transferring it to an animal, for which we have so many
instructive
parallels among Babylonians38 and other peoples,
35 Note also Ps. 51. 9. ‘purge me with
hyssop’.
36 Note that the term xF.eHal;, i. e. 'to remove the
sin', is used in
Lev.
14. 49, 52, as well as in the passage in Ps. 51. 9, the latter evidently
based
on the ritual.
37 The expression OtrAhImi
MOyB; is,
therefore, to be rendered as 'the day
on
which he is to be purified'.
38 See Cun..
Texts, XVII, Pl. 10, 73, 1-1; 11, 85, and the latest discussion.
370 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
(b)
a primitive remedial device, which consisted perhaps in
rubbing
the diseased person with hyssop, or in his inhaling
the
fragrance of hyssop; to hyssop, cedar wood was sub-
sequently
added, and the scarlet thread as a symbol of
the
sin or uncleanness; (c) an atoning ceremony by means
of
the 'blood' of a sacrificial animal with which the diseased
individual
was sprinkled.39 By combining
the three rites
we
obtain: (a) two birds; (b) the dipping of the cedar
wood,
hyssop; and scarlet thread, as well as the dipping of
the
live bird into the blood of the one to be killed; (c) the
sprinkling
of the one to be declared clean with the blood--
presumably
through the cedar wood and hyssop tied
together
with the scarlet thread, though this is not specifi-
cal
stated; (d) the dismissal of the live bird. The
awkward
construction of ver. 6, to which attention was
called
above, as well as the meaningless ceremony of dipping
the
live bird into the blood of the killed one, clearly shows
that
the introduction of the second bird is an after-thought.
Once
introduced, however, some means had to be found
of
connecting it with the first bird, and accordingly it was
provided
that the one bird should be dipped into the blood
of
the slaughtered one, and similarly the hyssop &c., were
to
the dipped in the blood so as to connect this rite also with
the
killing of the second bird. It is obvious that the bird
to
be slaughtered is introduced as a result of the extension
of
and other passages in the incantation texts by Langdon in the
Expository
Times. vol. 24 (1912), pp. 40 ff., though Langdon's translations,
it
ought to be added, leave room for further study.
39 ‘Seven times' seems to have become the
standing formula, though
it
is notable that not infrequently no number is specified, so, e. g., Lev.5. 9;
16.
15; Num. 19. 18. Presumably in such cases seven was assumed as the
number
prescribed.
THE SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 371
of
the principle of killing a sacrificial animal of some
kind
in connexion with every atonement, or, to use the
technical
term, with every hattat (txFAHa)40--and the purifi-
cation
offering of the one who has had sara’at
falls within
this
category--demanding the killing of an animal. The
old
and primitive custom of using a bird as a scape-animal
to
which the sara’at was transferred,
would suggest by
analogy
the choice of a bird as the sacrificial animal.
Lastly,
the washing of the garment, the shaving of the hair
of
the body and the washing in water, were added to the
ritual
in accord with the general principle that after a period
of
uncleanness rites symbolical of the cleanly state upon
which
the individual now entered had to be performed.
It
is, of course, an open question whether in the earliest
form
of the purification ritual for the sara'at
this elaborate
washing
and shaving41 was included, but certainly at the
40 The hattat
or 'sin-offering' rests on title same idea of the transfer
of
the disease to an animal, but the regulations regarding the hattat represent
a
more advanced stage when the killing of t e animal to which the disease
was
transferred had taken the place of merely sending it away, as was done
with
the wild goat of the Azazel rite. A bird or an untamed animal could be
sent
at large, but the domesticated sheep or bullock or ox would, of course,
come
back. This, together with the rise of an organized priesthood around
a
sanctuary and the practical need of providing an income for the priests,
led
to the change, involving the killing of the hattat,
the burning of those
parts
regarded as the vital organs, while the rest was given to the priests.
Naturally,
in the case of the ' sin-offering' for the high-priest or for the
people,
the entire animal was burned,
41 'The washing of the garments and the
bathing in water' is ordained
throughout
Lev, 15, for cases of bodily uncleanness; Lev. 17, 15 for one
who
has eaten 'abomination' or a 'torn' object (hpAreF; terephah); Lev. 16.
26-8
for the one who sends off Azazel and who burns the carcase of the
sin-offering'
bullock, and Num. 19.8 for the one who burns the 'red heifer',
and
ver. 19 for the one who has come in contact with a corpse, as well
as
Num. 17. 21-2 for the one who has touched anything contaminated by
a
woman during her period. The shaving of the hair of the body is peculiar
372 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
stage
when the three originally independent ceremonies
were
combined, the washing and shaving were also made
a
part of the ritual. Taking, therefore, the ritual as it
stands
we may distinguish in it earlier and later elements.
The
earlier elements are rites that originally were intended
to
exorcise the disease either by driving out the demon,
as
the cause of the disease, through the hyssop and cedar
wood,42
or by transferring the disease (or what amounts
to
the same thing, transferring the demon) to some animal.
Purification
from the 'unclean' demon leads to the use of
these
rites as symbols of the ritualistic 'purification' at
a
later stage, when a ritual was compiled to mark the return
of
the victim to intercourse with his fellows. Instead of
the
diagnosis and cure, we have as part of the religious
code
the diagnosis and the official dismissal, both done
to
the case of the one afflicted with sara'at.
In the case of the Nazarite
(Num.
6. 18) only the hair of the head is to be shaved on the completion
of
the vow, though the underlying idea is the same as in the case of the
sara’at ordinance.
42 No sharp distinction can be drawn in the
medicine of primitive peoples
between
an attempted cure by certain remedies and the exorcising of the
demon
through these remedies. The primary purpose of medicaments was
to
force the demon out through bad smells or to coax him out through
fragrant
odours. The benefit to the patient followed as a natural corollary.
A
cure was thus a release from the throes of the demon, but no doubt in
time
the positive aspects of medicaments as the common-sense view must
have
come to the front, though in the background there still stood the old
conception
of disease due to some unclean spirit which of its own accord
or
through the machinations of some sorcerer or witch had found its way
into
the body and was causing the trouble. It is rather strange how in this
way
the most primitive theory of disease touches modern pathology with
its
germ theory as an external substance that has found a favourable
condition
for growth in the body. Similarly, the crude belief of the savage,
that
death is not a necessary part of the order of nature but was introduced
through
special circumstances, anticipates to a certain extent the views of
some
modern biologists. See Frazer. Belief in
Immortality, I, p. 84.
THE SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 373
through
the priest. The more distinctly religious element,
which
is also the later one, is the bringing of a sacrifice,
and
probably the ritual bath an shaving of the hair.
The
sara’at code in its oldest compiled
form thus consists
of
Lev.13. 2-3, 9-13 and 14. 2-8 a, minus (a) the subsequent
additions,
comments, and glosses in both the diagnosis and
the
dismissal, and minus (b) the combination in the ritual of
dismissal
of four originally distinct elements, two of them
of
earlier and two of later origin.
In order to furnish a summary of the results
thus far
reached,
I add the original43 sara’at
legislation, forming
a
little Torah by itself:
-tx, NheKoha hxArAv; NheKoh-lx, xbAUhv;
tfaracA fgan, OrWAB; rOfB; hy,h;yi-yKi MdAxA
fgan, OrWAB; rOfme qmofA fgan,.ha
hxer;maU NkAlA j`pahA fgan.,Ba rfAWev; rWABAha-rOfB; fgan,.ha
Otxo
xm.eFiv; xUh tfaracA
-txeW; hne.hiv; NheKoha hxArAv;
NheKoha-lx, xbAUhv; MdAxAB; hy,h;ti yKi tfarcA fgan,
Oxm.;Fiv; OrWAB; rOfB; xyhi tn,w,On
tfaracA NbAlA rfAWe hkAp;hA xyhiv; rOfB hnAbAl;
NheKoha
hxArAv; rOfhA-lKA txe tfaracA.ha
htAs.;kiv; rOfBA tfaracA.ha Hrap;Ti HaOrPA-Mxiv;
fganA.he-tx, NheKoha rhaFiv;
OrWAB;-lKA-tx, tfaracA.ha htAs;.ki hn.ehiv; NheKoha
MpAWA-lfav; faUrpA hy,h;yi Owxrov;
MymiruP; Uyh;yi vyrAgAB; fban,h.a OB-rw,xE faUrcAhav;
ObwAOm hn,HEm.ila NyUhmi xmAF;yi
hnAhEm.ala CUHmi-lx, NheKoha xcAyAv;
OtrAhAFA MOyB; frAcom.;hi traOT hy,h;Ti txzo
rhEma.m.ila HqalAv; NheKoha hUAciv;
tfaracA.ha-fgan,mi faUrcAha xPAR;ni hne.hiv; NheKoha hxArAv;
Wr,H,-yliK;-lx, tHAx,HA rOPciha-tx,
FHawAl; NheKoha hUAciv; tOy.Ha MyriP;ci yTew;
43 Original, in a qualified sense, for we
are not in a position to restore
the
original character of the 'purification' or 'dismissal' section beyond
the
point above indicated, namely, that originally the rite was remedial and
purificatory
through the transfer of the disease or of the demon of the disease
into
the bird sent out at large. The ritual in this stage probably consisted
of
incantation formulae pronounced over the afflicted person with rites of
sympathetic
magic to induce the disease to pass over into the bird.
374 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
lfa hzAhiv; hFAHuw.;ha rOPci.ha MdaB;
hy.AHaha rOPc;.ha-tx, lbaFAv; MyiHa Myima-lfa
yneP;-lfa hyAHaha rOPci.ha-tx, Hla.wiv;
OrhEmiv; MymifAP; fbaw, tfaracA.ha-Nmi rhem.emiha
xObyA rhaxav; Myim.aBa CyHarAv;
OrfAW;-lKA-tx, Hla.giv; vydAgAB;-tx, rhemami.ha sBekiv; hd,WA.ha
hn,HEma.ha-lx,
tfarAcA.ha
traOT txzo
'If a man has on the skin of his flesh a sara’at--mark
and
he is brought to the priest, and the priest sees the mark
on
the skin of his flesh, and that the hair at the mark has
turned
white, and that the mark appears deeper than, the
skin
of his flesh, then it is a sara’at
mark, and he shall
declare
him unclean.
‘If there is a sara’at mark on a man, and he is brought
to
the priest, and the priest sees that there is a white
swelling
on the skin which has turned the hair white, it is
a
chronic sara’at on the skin of his
flesh, and the priest
shall
declare him unclean.
But if the sara’at
gradually spreads on the skin until
the
sara’at covers the entire skin, and
the priest sees that
the
sara'at covers the entire flesh, then
the priest shall
declare
the mark clean.
‘And the one afflicted with sara'at who has a mark,
his
garments shall be torn, and his hair shall grow wild,
a
he shall cover his moustache, and cry 'unclean, unclean'.
As
long as he has the spot he shall be unclean; outside
of
the camp shall be his dwelling.
This is the law of the one who has sara’at, on the day
of
his purification when the priest has gone to (the place)
outside
of the camp, and has seen that the sara’at
mark
of
the one afflicted with sara’at is
healed. Then the priest
shall
order two living birds to be taken for the one to be
purified;
and the priest shall order the one bird to be killed
THE
SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY ' LAWS--JASTROW 375
over
an earthen pot at running water; and the living bird
he
shall dip into the blood of the killed bird, and he shall
sprinkle
over the one to be purified seven times, and declare
him
clean, and send off the living bird into the open. And
the
one purified shall wash his garments, and shave all his
hair,
and wash in water, and after that come to the camp.
This
is the law of the sara’at.44
III
A significant feature of this original form of
the sara’at
code
is its disassociation from any sanctuary. The victim,
to
be sure, is brought to the priest, but no ceremonies are
enacted
in any sanctuary, and the rite of purification or
dismissal
is carried out outside of the camp where the
isolated
victim dwells. Even the sacrificial bird is not
killed
at any altar. The case is different in a second ritual
of
purification beginning with Lev. 14 8b, and extending
to
16. The independent character of this second ritual
has,
of course, been recognized by commentators.45
This second code reads, exclusive of comments
and
additions,
as follows:
‘And he shall dwell outside of his tent46
seven days,47
44 Subscript now at the end of Lev. 14. 7.
See below, p. 399.
45 See, e. g., Baentsch, Leviticus, p. 371.
46 The Greek translation, evidently with a
view of adapting the ritual
to
later social conditions when people dwelt in cities, reads 'outside of his
house'.
See above, note 24.
47 Verse 9, reading 'And on the seventh day
he shall shave all his hair
[explanatory
comment: his head and his beard and his eyebrows, and all his
hair
he shall shave], and wash his garments, and bathe his body in water,
and
be clean', is an addition taken from verse 8a in order to make the
second
ritual conform with the first. The additions, 'his head', &c., are
again
in the nature of a Gemara, and represent the answers of the priest
to
the questions that would be asked as to what constitutes 'all his hair'.
Does
it mean the hair of the head? Yes. The beard? Yes. How about
376 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
and
on the eighth day he shall take one lamb48 and
three-twentieths
of fine flour mixed with oil,49 and the
priest
shall place the one to be declared clean50 before
Jahweh.51
And the priest shall take the lamb52 and offer
it
as a guilt-offering,53 and he shall kill the lamb in a holy
place54
And the priest shall take of the blood of the
guilt-offering,
and the priest shall put (it) on the right
ear-lap
of the one to be declared clean, and on the right
the
eyebrows? Yes. Some one not satisfied
with this added, 'All his
hair
he shall shave'--to include the hairs on the breast, abdomen, legs,
arms,
and no doubt a strict construction in the spirit of Talmudical casuistry
would
include the hair around the privates.
48 It is quite evident that originally only
one lamb as a sin-offering
(txF.AHa) was sacrificed. The
brief manner in which the second lamb is
troduced
in ver. 19a, 'and the priest shall carry out (hWAfA) the sin-offering
(txF.AHa) and atone for the one
to be cleaned' [addition: from his unclean-
ness],
shows that the second lamb as a sin-offering is an after-thought, just
the
'ewe, one year old, perfect' (ver. l0b), and which (19b) he shall after-
ards
slaughter as a burnt-offering (hlAfo), are further additions
in regard
to
which it is specified (ver. 20). ‘and the priest'shall offer up the burnt-
offering
[addition: and the meal-offering (hHAn;mi) at the altar], and the
priest
shall
atone for him, and he shall be clean'. The repetition of the phrase,
‘he
shall atone for the one to be cleansed', or 'he shall atone for him' in
the
case of the second lamb, and in the case of the one-year-old ewe is
in
itself sufficient to show that the ritual has been elaborated at a later
period.
The additions, 'and the minhah' and 'at the altar', are again
answers
to the questions, (1) Is there to be a cereal-offering also with
the
burnt-offering? Yes: and (s) Shall it be offered at the altar just as
the
burnt-offering? Yes.
49 Addition, 'one log of oil'.
50 Explanatory comments: (a) i. e. 'the man
to be cleaned', and (b)
addition,
'and them'.
51 Explanatory comment: 'at the entrance of the tent of meeting', in
aswer
to the question, 'What does "before Jahweh" mean?’
52 Addition, 'one.’
53 Additions, (1) 'and the log of oil', and
(a) 'wave them as a waving
before
Jahweh.'
54 Explanatory comments:
(a) 'in the place where one (usually)
daughters
the sin-offering', to which some one added, (b) 'and the burnt-
THE
SO-CALLED 'LEPROS' LAWS--JASTROW 377
thumb
and on the right (large) toe.55 And the priest shall
sprinkle56
of the oil seven times before Jahweh57 . . . . and
the
priest shall atone for him before Jahweh.'
The addition of an official sacrifrice animal in
cases in-
volving
purification from uncleaness to an earlier ritual, in
which
the leading idea was the exorcising of the unclean spirit,
is
a characteristic feature of the Priestly Code. So in Lev. 15,
dealing
with purification in the case of an unclean flow, the
sacrificial
regulations for the eighth day, vers. 14-15 and
offering',
i. e. the 'holy place' means the altar on which sin- and burnt-
offerings
are usually brought. Other commentators added (c) 'for the guilt-
offering
(MwAxA)
is like a sin-offering (txFA.Ha)', i. e. the two are on a level
and
to be treated alike. Cf. Lev. 7. 7. (d) ‘It a holy of holies', (e) 'it is
the
priest's'. All five comments are, therefore,
again in the nature of
a
Gemara to the Mishnah, answering such questions as (a) where is the
'holy
place'? (b) why does he say 'guilt-offering' and not ‘sin-offering'?
(c)
to whom does the guilt-offering belong? &c. &c.
55 Ver. 15, 'And the priest shall take of
the log of oil, and pour it on the
left
palm of the priest', is clearly a later addition harking back to the ‘one
log
of oil'. Note the awkward repetition of the word 'priest'.
56 Addition, 'with his finger'.
57 Ver. 16a, 'And the priest shall dip with
his right finger of the oil which
is
on his left palm', is an explanatory amplification superinduced by ver. 15,
and
representing the attempt to combine the oil of the minhah with the ‘log
of
oil'. Ver. 17 is a further specification
of what is to be done with the
remaining
oil; an answer, therefore, to a question, 'How about the oil that
is
left in the palm of the priest?' Answer, 'The rest of the oil which is on
his
palm, the priest shall put on the right ear-lap of the one to be purified,
and
on his right thumb, and on his right (large) toe'; taken over, therefore,
from
ver. 14. An explanatory comment further adds, ‘over the blood of the
guilt-offering'
that has been placed on the parts named (ver. 14). Then
some
one asks. Suppose there is still some oil 1eft in the palm of the priest,
what
then? Answer; (ver, 18a). ‘And what is left of the oil which is in the
palm
of the priest, he shall pour on the head of the one to be purified'. It
is
to be noted that the Greek text occasionally omits the word 'priest'; so
e.g.
at the beginning of vers. 15 and 16, and occasionally inserts it; so e. g. in
ver.
18, after 'he gives' (NTeyi), where the Hebrew omits it, pointing to
con-
siderable
manipulation of the formal language of the ordinances.
378 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
29-30,
are clearly insertions, shown to be such by the pre-
ceding
verse which in each case (ver. 13 and ver. 28) ends by
stating
that the individual is 'clean'. Again in the 'atone-
ment’
ritual, Lev. 16, the second goat as a sin-offering (ver. 5)
is
an addition to the far older goat for Azazel, i. e. the goat
to
which the sin or uncleanness is to be transferred, just
as
the ram for the burnt-offering and the bullock of the sin-
offering
represent further layers. Similarly, in the Holiness
Code,
we come across this latter 'sacrificial' layer over an
older
one in which the sacrifice of an animal for the benefit
of
the priestly sanctuary does not enter into consideration.
The
twenty-third chapter of Leviticus, detailing festival
regulations,
the ordinances for the Passover, of unleavened
cakes,
abstaining from work on the first and seventh day,58
and
the waving of the Omer, as set forth in vers. 5-11 and
ver.
14, constitutes the earlier stratum, whereas verses 12-13,
adding
a lamb as a burnt-offering, and a minhah,
are
insertions
of a much later date. The same applies to
the
sacrificial ritual, vers. 18-20, which clearly represents
an
artificial attempt to connect an earlier ritual of
'waving'
a cereal offering at the end of the grain harvest
with
the 'waving' of sacrificial animals. In the case of
the
‘Atonement’ festival (vers. 23-32), it is noticeable that
no
sacrifice is mentioned at all, again pointing to the late
addition
of the goat introduced in Lev. 16. 5, &c., for
the
day.
The fact that the sacrificial ritual is
prescribed for the
eighth
day59 after everything is over shows that the older
58 Ver.8a, 'Ye shall bring a fire-offering
to Jahweh for seven days' is
an
insertion to conform with the Priestly Code, Num. 28.19-24, where the
fire-offering
is fully set forth and in great detail.
59 Just as in Lev. 15. 14-15 and 29-30.
THE
SO-CALLED ' LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 379
and
essential element in this second ritual is the washing
of
the garments, the bathing and the shaving, as in the first
ritual.
Furthermore, the many additions in the case of
the
sacrificial ritual point to the tendency to emphasize
the
sacrifice as the essential element. The one animal as
a
sin-offering, which according to the present law (ver. 21)
is
permitted as a substitute only in case the individual is
poor,
was all that the sacrificial ritual in its earlier form
required;
and we are probably right in assuming that this
earlier
form followed the regulation of Lev. 4. 32, which
prescribes
a ewe as the guilt-offering.60 To this a lamb
as
a burnt-offering (hlAfo) was added and not. .satisfied with
this,
an entirely unwarranted differentiation was introduced
between
a guilt-offering (MwAxA) and a sin-offering (txF.AHa),61
60 The little section (Lev. 4. 3a-3) represents
a different practice from
the
sections (a) Lev, 4. 3-12, (b) 4.13-21, (c) 4. 22-26, (d) 4. 27-31, pre-
scribing,
according as the transgression is one committed by an anointed
priest,
by the whole people, by a chief, or by an ordinary Individual,
a
bullock for the first two cases, a young goat for the third instance, and
a
young female goat for the fourth case.
61 The three offerings, hlAfo, txFAA.Ha and MwAxA, are found in Ezekiel
(e.
g. 40. 39, but in the Priestly Code (Lev . 5 and 7) no distinction is
recognizable
between txF.AHa and MwAxA, and a commentator is, therefore,
free
to admit (Lev. 7.7) that 'a sin-offering (txFA.Ha) is like a
guilt-offering
(MwAxA)--one law. Evidently, the difference between the two was
originally
merely
one of local usage of the term; in on locality, now represented by
ch.
5. 1-16. txFA.Ha being used, in another place, now represented by the
little
section 5.17-26, and ch. 7, MwAxA was employed. Of the
two terms,
MwAxA (‘asam) seems to represent the older usage.
The txF.AHa, therefore,
is
the one added in Lev. 14. in accord with the tendency to increase
sacrifices
though the result is a double sin-offering, since there is no
distinction
between ‘asam and hattat. The regular addition of the olah
(burnt-offering)
to hattat (sin-offering) is again an
illustration of this
tendency,
though here a factor involved is the consciousness that the sin-
offering
rests upon the old notion of the transfer of the disease or sin to the
animal,
whereas the 'burnt-offering' is the tribute to the angered deity who
is
to be appeased by the 'pleasant fragrance,’ which is what the phrase
380 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
and
thus another lamb was added; and lastly, a cereal
offering
(hHAn;mi) was attached,62 making, therefore, no less
than
four separate sacrifices. Even with this the process
of
heaping up one layer after the other upon the sacrificial
ritual
was not completed. The ordinary cereal offering
for
a lamb consisted of one-tenth of an ephah of fine meal,
mixed
with oil,63 but in our case the amount is raised to
three-twentieths,64
and besides the mixture of the flour with
oil,
a special quantity (log) of oil is
added (Lev. 14. 10c, 12b,
15a).65
The 'waving' of the sacrificial animal is prescribed
(ver.
12b), the elaborate ceremonial of touching the ear,
finger,
and toe of the individual with the oil,66 the sprinkling
seven
times 'before Jahweh',67 again a touching of the ear,
HaOHyni Hayre originally connoted.
The ‘substitute’ offering (Lev 5. 11; of one-
tenth
of an ephah of fine meal in the case
of one too poor to offer two turtle-doves
or
two young pigeons belongs, of course, in a different category. It is not
attached
to another offering, nor is it ever technically designated as a hHAn;mi
but
as txFAHa
(ver. 12), though a misplaced note; 'it shall be for the priest
as
a minhah’ (ver. 13b), shows that some pedant could not tolerate a
bloodless
offering to be called a hattat. In Num. 6, a compilation of various
layers
dealing with the one who has made a vow, the cereal-offering is
added
to the burnt-offering, sin-offering, and peace-offering at the termina-
tion
of the vow period (vers. 15-18), though the word hHAn;mi only intro-
duced
in the gloss or comment at the end of ver. 15. This is heaping up
sacrifices
with a vengeance, due to the endeavour to legitimize an old
custom
of temporary consecration by giving to the one who makes a vow the
temporary
status of a priest.
62 There is no minhah attached to the hattat
or ‘asam in Lev. 4. 5, 7.
63 The mixture with oil
is a constant factor of the minhah,
expressed
(Lev.
2. 1, 15, by ‘oil poured upon it’. On the other hand, the 'frankin-
cense'
(hnAbol;) also prescribed with the minhah was not carried out, at least
not
in the practice, which is set forth in Lev. 2.
64 Also Num. 15. 9; 28. 12, 20, 28; 29. 14.
65 This measure of oil occurs in this
chapter only.
66 part of the ceremony of initiation of priests,
Exod. 29. 20; Lev. 8. 23, 24,
though
here the blood is used to make the priest immune against demons.
67 The expression ' before Jahweh' is
evidently looked upon as identical
with
'at the entrance of the tent of meeting' and; therefore, the latter
THE
SO CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS—JASTROW
381
&c.,
of the individual with oil, and anointing the head with
what
is left (ver. 18). Verse 19 specifies the addition of
a
'sin-offering' and a 'burnt-offering', and verse 20 is a
comment
in the nature of a Gemara to indicate that the
burnt-offering
is to have its cereal offering accompaniment,
just
as the sin or guilt-offering. We thus find this section
overloaded
with sacrificial regulations in accordance with
the
tendency towards a steadily-increasing elaboration of
sanctuary
ceremonials, so characteristic of the later layers
of
the Priestly Code.68
This rather lengthy discussion was necessary to
show
phrase
is added as a gloss in ver. 11, and so also Lev. 15. 14, as well as
Lev.
4. 5, where the gloss has been placed before the words ‘before Jahweh’.
In
Exod. 29 and Lev. 8, furnishing the rites for the initiation of priests in two
recensions,
the expression used is 'at the entrance of the tent of meeting',
from
which we may conclude that the section is prescribing the wafers and
the
basket of unleavened bread, together with the ‘waving’ (Exod. 29. 23-4;
Lev.
8. 26-7) where 'before Jahweh' is used, represent elements from
some
other source. In Lev. 1-7, therefore, as well as Lev. 13-16, the
characteristic
expression is 'before Jahveh', and wherever the other
appears
(e.g. also Lev 15. 29) it is to be regarded as an explanatory
addition.
In the Holiness Code, likewise, dfeOm lh,xo HataP, appears to be
the
later addition, though this Code uses by the side of hOAhy;
ynep;li
(19. 22;
23.
11; 20-28; 24. 4-6) the simple phrase hOAhyila (Lev. 17. 5b, 9; 19. 21.;
22.
22, 27; 23. 5, 6, 12, 16, 18, 20, 25, 27, 38, 41; 24. 7, &c.). Even Lev.17.
4, 9,
the
words 'to the entrance of the tent of meeting', despite their position, are
explanatory
glosses, in the former passage to hOAhy; NKaw;mi
ynep;li in
the latter to
hOAhyla. Sections
in which the phrase 'at the entrance of the tent of meeting'
is
the original reading (e.g. Exod. 29 and Lev. 8; represent an older stratum
of
legislation, and may very well date back in substance to a very early
period;
whereas the phrase ‘before Jahweh’ shows that the compiler has
in
mind the sanctuary of
the
theory that the entire legislation reverts to the day of Moses.
68 A good illustration of this tendency towards
overloading is furnished
by
a comparison of the sacrifices for the new moon prescribed in Ezek. 46. 6
with
the additions made in Num. 28. 11, one young bullock as against two,
six
lambs as against seven. See Carpenter and Battersby, The Hexateuch,
I,
p. 128.
382 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
the
wide abyss between the first ritual (Lev. 14. 1-8), not
performed
in a sanctuary and with but little added to the
exorcising
rites though converted into a purification or
dismissal
ceremony, and the second ritual, which attaches
to
a simple cleansing ceremony a most elaborate series of
sacrificial
rites.
In the same spirit the substitute ritual, vers.
21-27, is
conceived,
permitting the poor man to bring merely one
lamb,
reducing, the amount of the meal to one-tenth, and
replacing
the second lamb and the ewe by two turtle-doves
or
two pigeons. I have suggested69 that what is here
permitted
as a substitute may have been the offering pre-
scribed
for an earlier period. Be that as it may, the
dependence
of this section upon the preceding one is
instanced
by the introduction of the log of oil (vers. 22, 24),
and
the ceremony of sprinkling and touching the ear-lap
of
the individual (vers. 25-29), identical with vers. 14-19, and
taken
over bodily from the latter, just as the wording in
vers.
30-31 is taken from ver. 19.70 Then follows a separate
subscript
for this section (vers. 21-31), but in which the
words
OdyA gyWiha xlo rw,xE are probably an addition, so that
the
subscript belonging originally after ver. 20, or perhaps
after
8a, once read 'This is the Torah for the cleansing
of
the one who has a nega’ sara’at.
69 Above, p. 379. Cf. the substitute which is provided for the
guilt-
(or
sin-) offering, Lev. 5. 7-10 (two turtle-doves or two pigeons without
a
minhah), and a further substitute for
the one who cannot even afford this
(vers.
11-12) of one-tenth of an ephah of
meal without oil or frankincense.
This,
of course, is not a minhah in the
ordinary sense. The word hHAn;mi.Ka
at
the end of ver. 13 is clearly a late addition.
70 The correct
construction is txF.AHa OdyA gyWiTa rw,xEme dHAx,hA-tx,
hWAfAv;
hlAfo dHAxeha-tx,v;. To this a commentator
adds as a note, 'the one', namely,
‘of
the turtle-doves or of the pigeons which he can afford'.
THE SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 383
IV
Having now discussed the original form of the
diagnosis
and
treatment of the sara’at and the purification
or dismissal
rites
of the one who has been healed of it, we may pro-
ceed
to an analysis of the remaining sections of Lev. 13-14,
namely,
(a) Lev. 13. 4-8; (b) 14-17; (c) 18-23; (d) 24-28;
(e)
29-37; (f) 38-39; (g) 40-44; (h) 47-58; (i)14. 33-53.
The
first section deals with the 'shining spot' (baheret) on
the
skin and the ‘growth’ (sappahat or mispahat).71 In
contrast
to the case (ver. 3) where the hair at the mark has
turned
white and the mark is deeper than the skin, in which
case
it is pronounced a sara’at, or (ver.
9) where the swelling
on
the skin (i. e. a mark higher than the skin) has turned
white,
in which case it is likewise sara’at
of a chronic type,
the
case is put forward (ver. 4) of white mark not sunk
in
the skin (i. e. even with the surface) and where the hair
has
not turned white. Such a case is regarded as a 'suspect',
and
the individual is put under guard for seven days. If
after
seven days there is no change another seven days'
observation
is ordained. After that two contingencies are
instanced,
either (a) the mark has grown fainter and not
spread,
in which case it is pronounced a harmless 'growth'
and
the suspect is dismissed as clean,72 or (b) the growth
after
the formal dismissal spreads, in which case the suspect
is
unclean. According to the close of ver. 8 it is declared
71 See above, p. 360. In ver. 1 the terns tr,h,Ba
Ox tHaPasa Ox txeW;
are
an insertion to make the heading conform o the contents of vers. 1-13.
The
txeW;
is treated ver. 10 seq. The more natural order of the insertion
would
have been, baheret, sappahat, and se’et. An interesting reference to
the
various kinds of nega’im is found Deut.
17. 8.
72 Addition (ver. 6c), 'he shall wash his
clothes'. The addition probably
read
in full 'he shall wash his garments and bathe in water', but it is here
given
in an abbreviated form.
384 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
to
be sara'at, but I am inclined to
regard this as a later
addition
made at a time when sara’at was used
in a very
general
sense for any skin disease which was regarded as
unclean.73
At all events, the spreading growth is not of
the
same order as the sara'at described
in vers. 3 and 10.
The second section (vers. 14-18) takes up the
case where
raw
flesh appears in connexion with a mark which (vers.14-
15)
is declared unclean. The double decision (a) xUh xmeFA 'it
is
unclean', and (b) xyhi tfaracA 'it is sara'at' at the end of ver. 15
is
suspicious, and I am inclined to regard the second decision
again
as a later addition to be explained as the one at the
end
of ver. 8. Correspondingly, the decision 'he is clean'
is
rendered in case the raw flesh turns white, and after the
priest
has satisfied himself that the spot has turned white.
The
raw flesh turning white simply means, therefore, that
the
skin assumes its natural appearance. These two sections,
therefore,
are in the nature of a Gemara to the original form
of
the sara’at Mishnah, as above set
forth. Precisely as in
the
talmudical discussions, various questions are asked, such
as
how about a white shining mark which is not deeper
than
the skin, and where the hair has not turned' white?
Answer:
Such an one is to be observed for seven
days.
Suppose
the mark remains unchanged? Answer: Observe
him
for another seven days. If it grows faint and does
not
spread? Answer: rOhFA 'he is clean'. Suppose
it comes
back
and spreads? Answer: xmeFA
'unclean'.
How about
raw
flesh on the skin? Answer: xmeFAA
'unclean'.
Suppose
the
raw flesh turns white? Answer: rOhFA 'clean'. In a
practical
hand-book the discussions are omitted and the
decisions
alone are given.
The third section continues the 'Gemara', and
like the
73 See below, pp. 389,
390, and 400f.
THE
SO-CALLED ' LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 385
talmudical
Gemara grows in complication as question
follows
fast upon question. How about the case of a boil.
(sehin) that is healed, but after the healing
process 'a white
shining
spot'74 even with the surface appears?75 Verse 20
gives
the answer: 'The priest shall examine (it), and if it
is
deeper" than the skin and the hair has turned white,
the
priest shall declare him unclean''.77 The commentator
quotes
the established diagnosis. Nothing is added to the
law--merely
an answer given to a question that appears
to
be asked from a theoretical rather than from a practical
motive--an
early variety of the 'hypothetical question'.
The
question, however; having once been asked, the other
case
as in ver. 4, must be considered: suppose the hair has
not
turned white, and the spot does not appear lower78
than
the skin. The answer is: The priest is to shut him
up
as a suspect for seven days, just as in ver. 4. Verse 22,
corresponding
to ver. 7, decides that if the spot spreads,79
it
furnishes the decision 'unclean' with the usual subsequent
addition
fgan,
(nega’), i. e. abbreviated for 'it is
a sara'at
mark'.50
Similarly, the question is also put
here: Suppose
74
Some commentator who wanted to be very exact added (v. 19) 'reddish',
since
as a matter of fact a shining spot, even when it appears to be white,
is
tinged with red. The words 'white' and 'swelling' are also added.
75 An explanatory comment, misplaced at the
end of ver. 20, says
‘spread
where the boil (was)’.
76 The text uses hlApAw; for ' deep' instead of qmofA in vers. 3-4,
indicative
of
another writer, or of a different stratum.
77 Once more the later addition 'it is nega’ sara’at,’ as above (see
note
4.
78 The words hhAke
xyhiv; (ver.
21; 'and it is faint' are not in place.
I
suspect an abbreviated note to indicate, as in ver. 6, that if after seven
days
'the spot has grown faint and has not spread' the suspect is dismissed.
79 Again given in abbreviated form. We must
supply 'reappears and
spreads'
after the dismissal, as in ver. 7.
80 The very fact that we encounter the abbreviated
form in the decision
386 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
the
'shining spot' remains stationary, and does not spread?
The
answer should be as in ver. 5--a further observation
of
seven days. Here, however, a new diagnosis is given.
When
such a spot appears on the skin where there had
been
a boil the stationary character after seven days shows
that
it is the scar of the boil (Nyhiw;.ha tb,r,cA), and the decision,
therefore,
is rOhFA
'clean'. The same lengthy discussion
follows
in the next 'Gemara'--the fourth section (vers. 24-
28)--where
the case is put of a white spot appearing in
connexion
with a burn. The hypothetical question originally
read
as follows:81 'If there should be on his skin a burn,
and
the healed burn82 should become a white shining
spot.’83
Once more the ordinary diagnosis is repeated: If
the
hair
has turned white at the shining spot, and the spot
is
deeper84 than the skin, it is unclean.85 If neither of
these
symptoms appears,86 the suspect is observed for seven
days;
if, at the end of that time, the spot spreads, he
is
unclean:87 if the shining spot remains stationary, with-
sara'at (vers. 8. 15), by the
side of nega' sara’at (ver. 20) and nega' (ver. 22),
shows
the very general and conventional usage acquired by sara'at as a
generic
term, and not as a specific designation.
81 Hebrew text Ox "or", whereas
the Greek version has 'and’.
82 Text hzAk;miha tyaH;mi. which appears to be a
semi-technical term for
the
burn that has been healed, corresponding to the healed boil in the fourth
section.
83 Addition again (ver. 24) as above in
ver. 19, 'reddish', i. e. ‘reddish
white',
to which another commentator added 'or white', to indicate that a
‘white'
sara'at includes a shining spot
entirely white, or reddish, i. e. white
tinged
with red.
84 Here (ver. 25) qmofA is used as in ver. 3-4,
but immediately thereafter
ver.
26) hlApAw;.
85 Again the usual conventional addition,
'it is a nega' sara'at', i. e. a
‘sara'at mark’.
86 "The words 'and it is faint' are
again out of place here, as above note 78.
87 With the addition, 'it is a nega' sara’at’.
THE
SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 387
out
spreading in the skin,88 the priest pronounces
him
clean,
since it is a (mere) 'scar of a burn’.
The fifth section takes up and discusses in
great detail
(vers.
29-37) the various symptoms connected with marks
or
sores on the head or beard to which the generic
designation
of netek89 is given, and which are
evidently
open
sores of some kind. The introductory statement
reads:
'If a man90 has a mark (nega’) on the head or beard,
and
the priest sees it, and it appears deeper than the
skin,
and there is thin shining hair91 in it, then the priest
shall
declare him unclean--it is a open sore92 (qt,n,):
The two tests of the diagnosis: (I) that the
spot is
deeper
than the skin; (2) the appearance of a yellowish
hair
indicating that the sore has changed the colour of the
88 Two comments, (a) 'it is (also) faint'
to make the verse correspond
to
ver. 6; (b) xyhi hvAk;mi.ha txeW; 'it is the swelling (se’et) of the burn'
(ha-mikwah), as a variant to xyhi
hvAk;m.iha tb,r,cA 'it
is a scar of a burn'.
89 The Greek renders it by
trau?ma 'wound'. The underlying stem
means
'to pull off violently', showing that nelek
must be an open sore
through
the pulling away of the skin, a kind of ulcer. Just as we have fgan,
and
tfaracA fgan,, so qt,n,.ha fgan, (ver. 31) is used by
the side of qt,n,; and
is
used to designate qt,n, (ver. 32) as well as tfaracA.
90 The text adds 'or woman', but the continuation
shows that only man
was
here referred to, though naturally the law, as all laws dealing with
disease
or sin, applies to both sexes. In ver. 38, on 'the other hand, the
words
'man or woman' belong to the original form of the little section,
which
is moreover misplaced; similarly, Lev. 20. 27 or Exod. 35. 29, but,
on
the other hand, 'woman' is added by later hand in Num. 6. 2, as is
shown
by a comparison with Lev, 27. 2, while Num. 5. 6 both 'man' and
'woman'
are added, the text reading simply, 'speak to the Bene Israel',
as
in ver. 2 'command the Bene Israel'.
91 sahob
(bHocA)
used only in this chapter and in Ezra 8. 27, in the latter
passage
of a copper vessel.
92 Addition, 'it is a sara’at on the head or beard', clearly marked as such
by
the repetition of the word xUh.
388 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
it
at the spot, are precisely of the same character as given
is
the preceding section, with the comparatively unimportant
difference
as to the nature of the change in the colour of
the
hair. The difference between white or reddish white
or
shining might easily be a subjective differentiation, the
fact
being that the change in the pigment of the hair
brings
about a colour that is not pure white, and may,
therefore,
be designated as reddish, or reddish and white,
or
simply shining.
The following verses 31-37 again show traces of
many
later
additions and of re-editing. The original text must
have
run as follows:
‘If the priest sees that the netek93 as mark is not deeper
than
the skin, and there is no shining94 hair in it, then
the
priest shall shut up the netek for
seven days, and if
on
the seventh day the priest sees the mark and behold
the
netek has not spread,95
then he shaves himself,96 and
93 Test, qt,n,ha
fgan,. See
note 8g.
94 The Hebrew text has 'black hair'
(perhaps a variant that has re-
placed
sahab, for which the Greek version
has the correct form 'shining hair'.
95 Addition, 'and there is no shining hair
in it, and the netek is not
deeper
than the skin'; the inversion pointing to the fact that it is a later
explanatory
amplification or note.
96 The Greek version says 'he shaves his
skin'; evidently a cleansing
ceremony
like washing the garments and bathing in water if the mark is
on
the body. A second procedure in the case of a suspected mark pro-
vided
that the victim 'must not shave the netek’
(ver. 33), and must be
shut
up for seven days. The two procedures were erroneously combined,
and
so we have in ver. 33, for no reason whatsoever, a second period of seven
days'
observation. It maybe, too, that the
second test of seven days is
misplaced,
and belongs in connexion with ver. 37, where the netek, after the
first
seven days, remains unchanged, and which would then correspond with
ver.
5. At all events, vers. 33-4, beginning
with Hal.egay; xlo qt,n,ha-txAz; and
extending
to Nh,Koha Otxo rhamiv;, are originally a duplicate of ver. 32 with the
addition
of the words rhemav; vydAgAB; sBekiv; Hl.Agt;hiv;, which belong to the
first
procedure.
THE
SO-CALLED ‘LEPROSY’ LAWS--JASTROW 389
washes
his garments and is clean,97 but if the priest sees
that
the netek, has spread in the skn,98
he is unclean.'
To this a later and quite superfluous corollary--forming
an
answer to the question, 'how about a netek
that remains
unchanged
and a black hair springs up in it, i. e. hair of
the
natural colour?'--adds (ver. 37):
'If the netek
remains the same and a black hair springs
up
in it, the netek is healed99—he
is clean.'100
Now it will have become evident that in none of
the
five
sections so far considered is there any reason to assume
that
we have variants of a particular disease known as
sara'at. The term when introduced
in these sections has
been
shown to be a later addition, and is, moreover, taken
in
a generic sense as an 'unclean' skin trouble, and not
as
a designation of any specific disease. The same is the
case
with the two remaining sections--(6) vers. 38-39 and
(7)
vers. 40-44--before we reach the point where the thread
of
the original and genuine sara’at
legislation is again
taken
up. In fact, in the case of the sixth section the term
sara’at is not even introduced,
and it is evident that this
little
section, consisting of only two verses without the
97 See the preceding note.
98 Ver. 35. 'If the netek has spread on the skin after his purification', is
entirely
superfluous, added in view of the erroneous combination of the two
procedures.
Ver. 36a is a doublet to ver. 35a.
99 Comment, ver.36,'The priest need not
(even) hunt for the shining hair',
for
it would make no difference in the decision that the victim is ‘unclean’.
The
comment is an answer to the question, Why is nothing said of the shining
hair
in case the netek has spread?
100 A superfluous comment or a misplaced
gloss adds, ‘and the priest
declares
him clean'. It is to be noted that in ver. 37, as in ver. 8, the phrase
‘stands
in his eyes’ is used to express the idea that the mark is unchanged,
as
against the phrase in ver. 28 'stands under it', pointing again to the
different
editors or commentators from whom these additions and comments
and
answers to implied questions emanate.
390 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
amplification,
as in the preceding five, is a supplement to
verses
4-8 and 24-28 dealing with 'shining' marks in the
skin.
The text originally read:
'If a man or woman has shining marks101
on the
skin102--it
is clean.'103
The seventh section deals with baldness, and
various
kinds
of bald spots, and certainly has nothing to do with
the
real sara’at. In its original form
the section read:
‘If a man loses the hair of his head104--he
is clean.
If
there is a white mark105 at the bald place,106 and the
priest
sees that there is a white swelling mark,107 the priest
shall
surely declare him unclean."108
101 A gloss adds 'shining white marks'.
102 The first part of ver 39, 'And the
priest sees the shining spots'
(gloss,
' faint white marks'), is a 'Gemara’ to point out that the priest is
the
one who must determine the harmless character of the spots.
103 Explanatory comment, 'It is a tetter (bohak) that has broken out on
the
skin'. On bohak corresponding to the
modern Syriac bohak, see the
note
on p. 76 of Drivers Book of Leviticus
in the Polychrome Bible, ed. Haupt.
104 Comment, 'he is a bald person' (Hareqe). To thin ver. 41, in
the nature
of
a Gemara, adds, 'If the front part of his head is bald he is forehead
bald
(HaBeni),
he is unclean'.
105 Additions, (a) '
reddish', like ver. 19, &c. See
notes 74 and 83.
106 Addition, in view of ver. 41, 'or at the
forehead baldness’. There
follows
the further comment, as in the above discussed five sections, 'it is
sara’at', to which some other
commentator adds 'in his baldness' or 'his
forehead
baldness' (i. e. 'a sara’at of his baldness or of his forehead baldness'),
again
in view of ver, 41. The Hebrew text also has 'breaking out'
(xyhi
tHaraPo);
but the Greek properly omits this, which is clearly added in
view
of the addition 'breaking out' in ver. 39. See notes 120 and 121.
107 hnAbAlA
fgan,ha-txeW;,
to which again are added (a) 'reddish' and (b) 'in
is
baldness or forehead baldness'.
108 No less than four further comments are
added: (1) 'like the appearance
of
sara'at of the skin of the flesh' (rWABA
rOf),
harking back to vers. 2-3;
(2)
xUh faUrcA wyxi 'he is a man afflicted with sara'at', where the com-
bination
of 'man' with saru’a, as against saru’a alone in ver. 43 (forming
art
of the original sara’at legislation,
points to the artificial addition;
THE
SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 391
The result, therefore, of our investigations so
far has
been
to show that none of the symptoms detailed in the
seven
sections superimposed upon the original sara'at
legislation
have anything to do with the disease described
in
the original portion of the two chapters, and that these
superimposed
sections are to be regarded merely as an
index
of that natural tendency to differentiate among a
large
variety of skin troubles due in part to advanc-
ing
medical knowledge--though medicine in a primitive
state--and
in part to the interest, partly practical, partly
theoretical,
in legal enactments, prompting questions to
which
answers must be given, and suggesting legal niceties
that
need to be discussed--a process in short, that, as has
been
emphasized above, is of the same general character
as
that to be noted in the great compilation of Rabbinical
Judaism,
and which led to the growth of an enormous
Gemara
about a comparatively simple series of enactments
grouped
together as Mishnah.
This process is continued and,
carried still further in the
two
sections of Lev. 13 and 14 that still remain to be
discussed:
(8) Lev. 13. 47-58, regarding suspicious spots
or
marks on garments and stuffs; (9) Lev. 14. 33-47,
to
which verses 48-53, a cleansing ritual corresponding to
14.
4-7 is attached.
(3)
xUhi xmeFA 'he is unclean', quite superfluous, and added merely as
a
conventional phrase; (4) His mark is on his head , again in the style
of
a 'Gemara' in answer to the question, Can nega'
be applied to the head
as
to the rest of the body? The first comment is in the nature of an
explanation
of the phrase 'a white swelling mark', to suggest a comparison
with
the diagnosis of the ‘a white swelling' (ver. 10), and on the erroneous
assumption,
prompted by the conventional addition of sara'at
throughout
these
sections, that all these skin troubles are forms of a specific sara'at
disease.
392 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Taking up the former, the use of the term nega' sara'at
(vers.
47, 49, (or sara’at) 51, 52) for such
spots on garments
and
stuffs is a further proof, if one were still needed, that
sara'at had lost any specific
meaning that it may once have
possessed,
for such a thing as 'leprosy', or any disease
peculiar
to man is a manifest absurdity in the case of garments
or
stuffs. The reference must be to moulds of some kind
or
other. Moreover, as in other sections, tfaracA fgn, alternates
with
fgan,
and tfaracA, the fuller or the abbreviated expression
being
synonymously used for a mark that is suspicious
or
unclean. The section shows distinct traces of dependence
upon
the original sara'at legislation,109
and represents,
therefore,
the further natural extension of the general
subject
of marks or spots outside of the human body.
just
as in the other sections, we are here also in a position
to
separate the original portion from subsequent accretions,
again
offering analogies to the 'Gemara' superimposed
upon
the 'Mishnah'. The section begins:
‘If there is a mark110 on a garment,
and the mark is
greenish
or reddish,111 the priest shall see the mark and
109 e. g. in the shutting up of the
suspected garment, &c., for seven days;
in
the diagnosis, whether the mark has spread or remained steadfast; in the
washing
of the garment, corresponding to the washing of the body and
the
shaving of the head.
110 Text, tfaracA
fgan,,
where, however, tfaracA is an erroneous addition,
as
shown by the consistent use of fgan, alone in the portion of
the following
verses
dealing with the merely suspected mark. It is only in case the mark
by
the test is proved to be unclean that the word sara'at can properly be
added.
There s added (a) the explanatory Gemara 'in a garment of wool
or
in a garment of flax', and then (b) the further amplification in answer to
he
questions. How if it appears in the warp or in the woof only? Does
this
apply also to wool and flax? How if it
appears on a prepared skin,
i.e.
leather or on something made of a skin? The answer is, 'or in the
warp
or in the woof of wool or flax [so the Greek text], or in a skin or in
anything
made of skin'.
111 ‘Greenish’ maybe a later addition, since
in the other sections ‘reddish
THE
SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS—JASTROW 393
shut
up the mark for seven days. If the priest112 sees on
the
seventh day that the mark has spread on the garment,113
the
mark is unclean; and he shall burn the garment114 in
which
is the mark;115 but if the priest sees that the mark
has
not spread in the garment,116 the priest shall command
to
wash117 the (part) where the mark is,118 and the priest
shall
inspect the mark after it has been washed, and if
the
mark has not altered its appearance119--it is unclean120
alone
is introduced. Once more the addition 'or in a skin, or in the warp
or
in the woof or in any object made of a kin'. Then follow the two
further
additions, (1) 'it is a sara’at
mark', in the preceding sections,
and
(2) 'it shall be shown to the priest'.
112 So the Greek text.
113 Two comments, (a) the customary addition
'or in the warp, or in the
woof,
or in a skin, including whatsoever is made of the skin', and (b)
tr,x,m;ma tfaracA, meaning probably
'persistent sara’at’, corresponding
to
'chronic
sara’at (ver.11).
114 Again, 'or in the warp, or in the woof,
in the flax or the wool or any
object
made of skin'. The variations in this
conventional addition, such as
the
omission of the 'skin', the change in the order of enumeration, the
variant
usage to indicate anything made of leather, clearly point to the sup-
plementary
character of the insertions.
115 Explanatory comment, ' because it is a
"persistent" mark it shall be
burnt
in the fire'.
116 Or in the warp, or in the woof, or in
any object made of skin.'
117 Hebrew text plural (UsB;kiv;), whereas the Greek
text has the singular.
118 At this point the original text has been
more seriously interfered
with
by the addition of a second period of seven days' observation, added
evidently
to bring about a correspondence with Lev. 13. 5, where, however,
the
point is that the mark has remained steady. The ordinance, in its
original
form prescribed the washing of the pot as a further test.
119 Explanatory comment, 'though the mark
has not spread'.
120 Two additions, (1) 'in the fire thou shalt
burn it' (note the variant
usage),
and (2) it is a pehetet (tt,h,P; ), which, according to
the tenor of the
Greek
rendering (e]sthri<zetai), designates 'deeply ingrained mark'. The
further
addition, (3) 'in its baldness or its forehead baldness', is evidently
a
misplaced addition belonging somewhere in the seventh section (vers.40-44).
It
is strange that none of recent commentators, neither Driver, nor Carpenter,
nor
Baentsch, nor Bertholet, has noticed this. The Greek version reads
394 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
But
if the priest sees that the mark has grown faint after
the
mark has been washed, he shall tear it out of the
garment121
and the garment122 which has been washed,
and
from which the mark has disappeared,123 it is clean.'
The
beginning of ver. 59, 'This is the torah
of the sara’at
mark',
belongs, as clearly indicated, to the original sara’at
legislation,
to which a final redactor who had merely this
eighth
section before him, and which must have once
occupied
an independent position, added, 'a garment of
wool
or flax, or the warp or the woof, or any object
of
skin, with reference to its being clean or its being
unclean'.
Taking up, finally, the ninth section (Lev. 14. 33-53)
we
have
its originally independent character (as has been
recognized
by commentators)124 indicated by the special
introductory
clause: 'When you come to the land of
‘in
the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof', which is at least intelligible.
‘Baldness'
and 'Forehead baldness' become, of course, nonsensical when
applied
to garments. The entire gloss, OTH;kanaB; Ox OTh;raqAB; xyhi
tt,H,P;
is
a variant of ver. 42b, and tt,H,P; may be simply a
corruption for tHaraPo
in
ver. 42.
121 Addition, 'or from the skin, or from the
warp, or from the woof’.
The
entire fifty-seventh verse represents a group of additional comments, as
follows:
(a) 'If it should reappear in the garment, or in the warp, or in the
woof,
or in any object of skin, it is a spreading mark' (tHaraPo); (b) ‘In
the
fire thou shalt burn it'; (c) 'where the mark is', the latter again
a
misplaced comment.
122 Addition, 'or the warp, or the woof, or
any object of skin'.
123 Explanatory comment harking back to the
addition in ver. 54 (see
note
118), 'and washed a second time'.
124 See, e.g., Carpenter and Battersby, Hexateuch, II, p. 162, note 33
Bentsch,
P. 374; Driver, Leviticus, p. 77,
note 22, &c.
125 A similar phrase in Lev. 18. 23; 25. 2
and Num. 15. 2 marks the
introduction
of an independent little Torah and, as it would appear, either
THE
SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS—JASTROW 395
a
mark126 in a house,127 and the one to whom the house
belongs
comes and tells the priest, to wit: "something like
a
mark has appeared in my house'." Then follows (ver. 36)
a
curious provision, that before the priest comes the house
is
to be cleared of the furniture so as to save that from
also
being pronounced unclean. This practical device,
which
shows that questions of sanitation could not have
a
been uppermost in the minds at least of those who com-
mented
upon the legislation, looks very much again like
an
answer to the question whether one may remove one's
furniture
before the mark is examined, and thus save it
from
possible destruction in case the whole house is
condemned.
At all events, verse 35 must be joined directly
to
verse 37.
‘And when the priest sees that he mark128
on the walls
of
the house forms greenish129 or reddish patches, and
that
they
are deeper than the wall, then the priest shall go out
of
the house to the door of the house,130 and close up the
house
for seven days; and the priest shall return on the
seventh
day, and if he sees that the mark has spread on
the
walls of the house, the priest shall order the stones
where
the mark appears to be removed, and to be thrown
of
a supplementary character, as in our case and in Lev. 19. 23 and as 25. 2,
or
in the nature of a general summary, as Num. 15. 2. In all cases the
legislation
thus introduced is late, representing,
in fact, the latest stratum
in
the Priestly Code.
126 Text, tfaracA
fgan, here
again, a Lev. 13.4 , sara’at is out
of
place
and anticipates the result of the diagnosis.
127 Addition, 'of the land of your possession';
Greek versions read
‘houses’.
128 The Hebrew has a superfluous 'and behold
the nega’’, which is omitted
in
the Greek version.
129 ‘Greenish’ may be a later addition. See
note 111.
130 Note the discursive style,
characteristic of, this ninth section.
396 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
outside
the city,131 and other stones to be taken and brought
in
place of the stones.132 And if the mark reappears and
spreads
on the house after he has removed the stones, as
then
if the priest comes and sees that the mark has spread
in
the house134--it is unclean. And one shall tear down
the
house,135 and all the dust shall be carried outside of
the
city.136 But if the priest
comes and sees that the mark
has
not spread in the house, the priest shall declare the
house
clean, for the mark is healed.'137
Here the first part of the section ends, and
there follow
(vers.
49-53) the ritualistic provisions which are manifestly
a
transference of Lev. 14. 4-8a--the first procedure in the
131 Addition, 'to an unclean place', which
suggests the unsanitary dust
and
rubbish heaps characteristic of Palestinian towns even at the present
time.
A 'Gemara' adds (ver. 41) 'And the house shall be scraped all
ground,
and the scraped dust deposited outside of the city at an unclean
place'.
132 Addition, ‘And he shall take other dust,
and plaster the house', in
answer
to the question, What is to be done to the house?
133 Addition to conform to the earlier
additions, 'And after the house has
been
scraped and after the plastering'.
134 Addition as in the former section, 'It is
"persistent" sara'at in the
house'.
Cf: note 115.
135 Addition, 'Its stones and its wood', a
detailed specification added in
answer
to the question, Does 'house' mean perhaps only the stone, or does
include
the wood-work? The Greek version omits 'its wood', pointing
clearly
to the manipulation of the Hebrew text.
136 Addition again 'to an unclean places.
Then follow two purely
ritualistic
ordinances, which clearly represent the endeavour to connect
a
ritualistic observance with the 'house' spot as with other kinds of marks.
Therefore,
we are told (ver). 46-7), 'And whoever enters the house during
the
days that it is closed shall be unclean till-evening; and he who sleeps
in
the house shall wash his garments ['and be unclean till evening', so the
Greek
text]; and be who eats in the house shall wash his garments ['and
be
unclean till evening', so again the Greek text]. Verse 47 evidently
represents
the superstructure upon ver. 46 to bring about a conformity with
Lev.
14. 8 and with passages like ver. 9 based thereon.
137 fgan,.ha xPAr;ni, corresponding to Lev. 14.
3 in the original sara’at Torah.
THE
SO-CALLED 'LEPR0SY' LAWS--JASTROW 397
original
sara’at Torah--to the 'hour ' mark,
and a most
awkward
transfer at that, as will presently appear. Before
taking
up this second part, let us not how in the first part
the
diagnosis follows slavishly in the path of the original
sara’at legislation in the
following points: (I) the emphasis
on
the change of colour at the place where the mark is;
(2)
that the mark or marks must be beneath the surface;
(3)
the seven days' quarantine; (4) the decisions resting
upon
the spread of the mark. The new point, though
corresponding
in a measure to the tearing out of the mark
on
the garment (Lev. 13.56), is the removal of the stones
containing
the suspicious marks (to which later com-
mentators
added still further directions). Here, evidently,
we
have a piece of legislation specially devised for the case
in
question, and not based upon an attempt to provide
in
the case of the mark on the house something analogous
to
an unclean mark on an individual. The same applies
to
the provision to tear down the house and to remove the
dust
to another place in case of a reappearance, or of a
spread
of the marks after the first attempt to heal the
house
had failed.
Taking up the second part of the section, the
dependence
upon
Lev. 14. 4-8a, as has already been suggested, is self-
evident.
The adaptation of the latter ritual in its elaborated
and
not in its original form to the house declared clean,
leads
to the substitution of the interesting phrase xFaHal;,138
literally,
'to remove the sin' (Lev. 14. 49 and 52),"in the
sense
of purifying--what we would call ' fumigating'--for
rHeFamila 'to declare or dismiss as clean' (14. 4, 7).
The
138 The Piel of the verb in this sense is found
in Exod. 29, 36; Lev. 8. 15;
9,
15; Ezek. 43. 22-23, applied to the altar; also Ps. 51. 9 in the direct sense
of
cleansing; but quite differently Gen. 31. 39.
398 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
comparison
between Lev. I4. 4-8 with 49-53, moreover,
justifies
the analysis given of the former, since some of the
additions
in Lev. 14. 4-8 are actually not found in 49-53.
So
we have in the latter merely ‘the two birds’ without
the
addition of living clean'. Similarly, verse 51 is nearer
to
the original form than 14. 4, especially in the Greek text,
which
reads:
‘And he shall take [addition: "cedar wood
and hyssop
and
scarlet thread "] the living bird and dip it [so the
Greek
text] in the blood of the killed one [addition:
the
running water"—so the Greek text] and sprinkle133
the
house seven times.'
Verse 50 corresponds to verse 5, but on the
other hand,
verse
52 represents a redundancy over the original sara’at
Torah.
It sums up:
‘And he shall purge140 the house
through the blood of
the
bird, and through the running water, and through the
living
bird, and through the cedar wood, and the hyssop,
and
the scarlet thread.' This is evidently added to
emphasize
the elaborateness of the ritual. Verse 53
reading:
'And he shall send off the living bird outside of
the
city141 and atone for the house,' 142 corresponds to the
second
part of verse 7. The substitution of ‘city’ for
‘field’
indicates the change in social conditions intervening
between
the period of the original sara’at
Torah and the
late
supplement modelled upon it. It is perhaps worth
while
to note that the second ritual (vers. 8b-20) is not
139 Greek text adds 'with them'.
140 xFeHi, see note 138.
141 The dependence of this ritualistic
ordinance upon Lev. 14, 4-8a is
shown
by the meaningless addition of 'over the
face of the field', merely
because
this phrase is used in Lev. 14.7.
142 Addition. 'and it is clean'.
THE
SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY'- LAWS---JASTROW 399
carried
over to the 'cleansing' ritual for the house. The
older
exorcising ceremony alone was adapted to the case
of
a ‘mark’ in a house, and that after the test had been
made
and the house declared clean. In view of this
adaptation
it is no longer possible to say whether in the
case
also of the house, the ritual originally represented
the
means of exorcising the disease, and was subsequently
connected
with a symbolical ceremony of formally declaring
the
house clean. The lateness of this transferred ritual
suggests
that in the mind of the one who so transferred it,
the
ritual was regarded merely as ‘dismissal’ ceremony.
The
subscript, verses 54-57, is particularly elaborate.
As
already pointed out, we ma regard the second half
of
verse 57, ‘This is the law of the sara'at'--as
the closing
formula
of the original sara'at legislation.
If this be so,
it
will be the simplest solution of the problem to divide
the
remaining verses into a series of originally independent
subscripts
that have been here repeated and united. In
this
way verse 54, 'This is the law for every nega'
sara’at,
and
for the netek, would be the subscript
for Lev. 13. 1-17
and
29-57; [This is the law for the sara’at]
'of the
garment'
(ver. 55 a) for Lev. I3. 7-58; '[This is the law
for
the sara’at] of the house' (ver. 55b)
for Lev. 14. 33-
53,
while verse 56, 'for the swelling, growth, and shining
spot'
(taken from Lev. 13. 2), represents an amplification
to
verse 54-and is, therefore, a comment or note which
has
gotten a little out of place. Of special interest is.
verse
57a, 'to teach [i.e. to set forth the law] for the day of
(pronouncing)
unclean and for the day of (pronouncing)
clean',
which again is obviously a 'Gemara' to explain
that
the Torah includes the diagnosis and the decision-
whether
unclean or clean. The subscript through
the
400 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
repetition
and the union of five subscripts: (I) all kinds
of
nega’ sara’at [i. e. the swelling,
growth, and shining .
pot];
(a) netek; (3) garment; (4) house;
and (5) that of
the
original legislation143 thus aims to unite the two
chapters
that we have analysed into one Torah--viewed
under
the aspect of sara'at, but we have
seen that this
term,
representing everywhere outside of the original
sara'at legislation an addition,
is used in the generic sense
of
any unclean spot or mark on a human body, or on a
garment,
or on a stuff, or on a house. We must therefore,
exclude
the nine sections superimposed upon the original
legislation
from consideration in any attempt to determine
what
the sara’at really and originally
meant.
V
It is needless for our purpose to enter into a
detailed
discussion
of the various views regarding sara'at
that have
jeen
brought forward from a medical point of view.144 All
of
these investigations, valuable though they are as medical
discussions,
suffer from the defect that they assume the
unity
of Lev. 13 and 14,145 and particularly of Lev 13. 1-37,
143 It will be observed that there is no
subscript for the section on boils
burns
(Lev. 13. 18-28), or for the one on baldness (Lev. 13. 40-4), which
raises
the question whether these sections may not have been inserted after
the
first union of Lev. 13 and 14.
144 It is sufficient to
refer to G. N. Blanch, Die Zamath (Lepra)
der
hebraischen
R.
Bennett, The Diseases of the Bible,
Medzin im Alku Testament, pp. 75-95; Preuss, Biblisch-Talmudische
Medzin, pp. 369-go; and Jay F.
Schamberg, The Nature of the Leprosy of
the
Bible (see note a). Some of
these writers, especially Ebstein (l. c., p. 89),
recognize
that sara'at includes a variety of
skin diseases.
145 It was, of course, natural that ancient
writers like Philo and the
rabbinical
authorities in the Talmud, under the ban of the tradition which
scribed
the entire Pentateuchal legislation to one period and one man,
THE
SO-CALLED ‘LEPROSY' LAWS—JASTROW 401
which
portion naturally occupies the most prominent place
in
medical discussions of sara’at. The
above analysis has,
however,
shown that verses 18-37, deal with boils, burns,
and
sores, and their symptoms, and that they are pro-
nounced
clean or unclean according to tests that are
suggested
by, and dependent upon those applied to sara’at
in
the original sara’at legislation, but
that otherwise
they
have nothing to do with sara’at. The application
of
the term sara’at to these dieases
represents a late
addition
made at a time when sara’at had
acquired an
entirely
general designation, so that it could be applied
even
to 'bald spots' (Lev. 13. 42). The fact that the
diseases
mentioned in Lev. 13. 17-37 have their specific
designation
as ‘boils’, 'burns', and particularly netek,
and
that
even the symptoms described have technical designa-
tions
('scab of boil', 'scab of burn') strengthens the thesis
that
the application of sara’at to them is
of secondary
origin;
and this is further borne out by the substitution
of
nega’ for sara’at, to which attention has been directed.
In
Lev. 13. 1-17 the 'growth' (tHaPasa sappahat) has its
specific
name, namely mispahat (tHaPas;mi vers. 6-8), which
if
it spreads does not become sara'at,
but makes one
unclean.
In the case of mispahat it is
particularly clear
that
the application of sara’at has no
medical significance
or
justification--the point involved being to determine
whether
it is a 'clean' or an 'unclean' variety of disease.
The
addition at the close of ver. 8 'it is sara'at’,
can only
have
the force of a convention--a non-medical identification,
should
have started from this point of view, which led Philo (de Posteritate
Cain', I, §13) to define sara’at as a 'multiform and complicated
disease',
and
the Rabbis in the Talmudical Treatise Nega'im
to go to even greater
lengths
in the application of a term that must once have had a very specific
meaning.
402 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
and
at the very most can be taken to mean that the
'unclean'
mispahat is to be put on the same
plane as
sara’at. In a medical
discussion, therefore it is erroneous to
start
from an identification of the two, or to regard mispahat
as
a variety of sara’at. This view of sappahat carries with it
baheret (shining mark),which is
treated merely as a symptom,
and
therefore introduced with sappahat
(ver. 4), with boils
(ver.
19), and with burns (vers. 24, 28), and with bohak
(ver.
39). On the other hand, 'the white swelling' implied
in
ver. 2, and treated in ver. 10--a part of the original
sara’at legislation--belongs to
the symptoms of sara’at,
and
apparently is the means, or one of the means, of dis-
tinguishing
between ordinary sara’at, which may
be healed,
and
chronic sara’at, which is pronounced
unclean even
without
the test of an isolation for purposes of observation
(ver.11).
In verses 38-9 the description of a specific
disease bohak
(tetter)
is given as a caution against regarding numerous
white
spots on the skin as 'unclean'. The term sara’at
is
not even introduced here--the verdict being 'clean'--
while
in verses 40-43, dealing with two forms of baldness,
the
occurrence of 'white swelling', alone suggests a com-
parison
with the diagnosis of sara’at. While,
no doubt,
this
section is secondary to the original sara’at
legislation,
the
possibility that the symptom here described may
belong
to sara’at in the original sense must
be admitted.
The
peculiar usage, 'like the appearance of a sara’at
of
the
skin of the flesh' (Lev. 13- 43), shows, at all events,
the
intention of the author to add this symptom under
the
head of the genuine sara'at. Even
though not belonging
to
the original sara’at legislation,
verse 43 must be con-
sidered
in a discussion of the original force of sara’at.
THE
SO-CALLED ‘LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 403
We
may, of course, dismiss without a further word the
application
of sara'at to garments, stuffs, and
houses--
which
if taken seriously would lead to medical conclusions
of
an absurd character. Even those who wish to save the
original
integrity of Lev.13 and 14 will hardly go so far
as
to assume that the legislator had in mind the modern
'germ'
theory, according to which a disease can be carried
to
a person through clothes or through the walls of a
house.
Such germs--difficult often for modern medical
science
to determine--are not so considerate as to manifest
themselves
in big patches. The non-scientific application
of
the name of a disease to which man is subject to an
inanimate
object shows conclusively that sara’at
is not
used
in its specific and original sense.
Excluding, therefore, mispahat, as well as 'boils', 'burns',
netek (open sore), bohak (tetter), and, of course, mere
baldness
and marks on garments and stuffs and houses,
what
then is sara'at?
Thrown back upon the original sara'at legislation, the
answer,
from a symptomatic point of view, is quite simple.
It
is a skin disease, which appears in a milder and curable
form
and in a severer chronic form--or what was considered
at
the time as chronic. In its milder form the symptoms
are
a spot (or a mark) with a tendency to spread,146
appearing
deeper than the skin, and changing the hair at
the
spot to white; the other as the chronic form is marked
by
the 'swelling' character of the spot, i. e. the inflammation
produces
a spot in 'high-relief' against 'bas-relief'.
Besides,
there is also the symptom of the hair at the spot
turning
white, and the appearance of raw flesh in the
146 Note, however, the 'Gemara' (ver. 12)
that if it spreads over the whole
body
it is merely a 'rash', and, therefore, 'clean'.
404 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
swelling.
From a modern medical point of view, these
symptoms
must appear somewhat naive and decidedly
insufficient.
It is not surprising that students of medicine
should
disagree as to the precise disease indicated, and that
the
perfectly relevant question should have been raised
whether
sara'at ever indicated any specific
disease.
That sara’at
was never intended as a designation of
leprosy
or elephantiasis Graecorum147 is
now so generally
admitted
as to require no further discussion. Indeed, there
is
no proof that the disease was known in
days
any more than in
Orient.148
The consistent Greek rendering of sara'at as
lepra--followed by the
Vulgate--is a most valuable tradi-
tion,
carrying us back to at least the second century B.C.,
for
the current view of sara’at, just as
a misunderstanding
of
lepra is responsible for the opinion
still popularly current
that
the disease described as sara'at is
leprosy. The
manner
in which the confusion between lepra
and ‘leprosy’
arose
is fully set forth by Bennett and others.149 In Greek
medical
usage lepra designates 'a cutaneous
disease varying
in
its features, but the essential characteristic of which is
a
rough, scabrous or scaly eruption on the skin, with more
or
less evidence of surrounding redness or superficial
inflammation’.150 Three varieties of lepra are distinguished
by
Greek writers, and it is therefore reasonable to suppose
147 See, especially, Munch's exhaustive
discussion of the point, chaps. I
and
III-VI, and Bennett's Diseases of the Bible,
pp., 40ff.
148 So, e. g., Munch's conclusion, p. 145. If it had been known, it would
certainly
have been enumerated among the diseases threatened as ‘curses’
in
Deut. 28, where it is noticeable that sara'at
is not mentioned, whereas
the
'boils' of
149 See Bennett, pp. 16-19; Munch, pp. 88.
150 Bennett, p. 19.
.
THE
SO-CALLED ‘LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTR0W 405
that
several varieties also existed in
enough--if
the above analysis is correct--there would be
also
three varieties in Lev.13, 1-17; (1) the 'bas-relief'
sara’at; (2) the 'high-relief' sara’at; and (3) the mispahat,
which
latter certainly stands in a close relation to the first
and
second. In any case sara'at, is
definitely narrowed
down
to this portion of the chapter--'boils', ‘burns’, netek,
bohak, &c., being
entirely excluded. Too much stress must
not
be laid upon this quite unexpected result that Lev. 13.
1-17
should contain three varieties of sara'at,
for the agree-
ment
with the three varieties recognized by Greek medical
writers
may be a pure coincidence, and would have a value
only
in case the diagnosis of the three varieties would be
identical
among Greeks and Hebrews.151 This does not
appear
to be the case. The essential characteristic of lepra
seems
to be, according to the testimony of Greek and
Latin
medical writers,152 scabrous or scaly eruptions on the
151 This suggestion that three varieties of lepra are described, corre-
sponding
to the three varieties of vitiligo as set up by Celsus, was made long
ago
(see Bennett, pp. 31-3) by Drs. Mason, Good, and Belcher, but their
identifications
are very arbitrary, and rest upon the erroneous supposition
that
all diseases enumerated in Lev. 13 come under sara'at. Moreover, the
fact
that the same three designations (alphos,
melas, and leuki) are described
as
varieties of vililigo by Celsus (de Medicina, V, 27.19), whereas writers
apply
the three terms to varieties of lepra
(psoriasis), or to diseases allied
to
lepra, points to a further confusion
in early medical nomenclature, which
an
additional warning against drawing definite conclusions from the vague
and
unscientific diagnosis in Lev. 13.
152 See the passages from Hippocrates
gathered by Munch, Die Zaraath
(Lepra) der Bibel, pp. 3-4. Since Hippocrates used the plural form, leprai
(cf.
'certain leprai', V, 98, § 17, ed. Littre) it is evident that he recognized
several
varieties, but it is to be noted that he nowhere enumerates three
varieties,
alphos, niclas, and leuke. In fact, melas
is not mentioned by him
at
all, whereas alphos (also used in the
plural as well as in the singular)
occurs
by the side of lepra, but distinct
from it (lepra, leichenes, and alphoi,
V,
701, § 502; lepra and alphos, V, p. 179; IX, 105. § 20,
&c.), and the same
406 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
skin
as the name lepra, which means 'rough'
or 'scaly',
indicates.
The three varieties, alphos, melas, leuke are
distinguished
from one another by the colour of the eruption,
which
in the case of alphos is white, in
the case of melas
black
and shadowy, and in the case of leuke
whiter than
the
alphos variety. Moreover, only in the
case of the leuki,
is
there in Celsus a specific mention of white hairs in
connexion
with the eruption. The leuke
penetrates more
deeply
into the skin than the alphos and melas, which
agree--except
in the matter of the colour--'in being
roughish
and not confluent, looking as though scattered
in
drops with wide interspaces between the drops'.153 By
general
consent, the lepra of the Greeks is
identified with
psoriasis, or at all events, the
different varieties of lepra are
classed
under the head of psoriasis. The
important stress
which
is laid upon the hair turning white in Lev. 13,
suggests
that the only form of lepra which the
original
sara'at legislators had in mind
was the leuke variety, and
the
description given in verse 3 of the appearance of the
mark
'deeper than the skin' might accord also with
the
express mention in the case of leuke
that the eruption
penetrates
more deeply into the skin. It is noticeable also
that
the leuke variety is the only one of
the three which
has
a serious import, and was on the whole not regarded
as
curable, whereas the alphos and melas are cured without
great
difficulty. The objection, however, against the iden-
tification
of sara’at in Lev. 13. 3 with leuke is that no
is
the case with leuke (leichenes, leprai, and leukai (plural); IX, p. 75, § 43).
There
is, in fact, no passage where even lepra,
leuke, and alphos occur together,
showing
that each was regarded as a distinct disease by Hippocrates, and
that
in the case of each, as the, use of the plural form shows; several varieties
were
recognized.
153 Bennett, as above note 149.
THE
SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 407
reference
is made to the rough or scaly symptom of the
eruption.
Such a reference may, however, be recognized
in
the second variety of sara’at (ver.
10) where the eruption
is
in 'high relief'. The 'white swelling' would be a close
approach
to leuke, and the 'raw flesh', added
as another
symptom,
might well be a further description of a 'rough'
eruption.
The description of leuke that it ‘penetrates
more
deeply’
would, therefore, not represent the equivalent to
being
‘deeper than the skin’, and this is perhaps natural,
since
in the case of lepra the eruptions
are rough and scaly
in
all three varieties. The omission, therefore, of ‘deeper
than
the skin’, in ver. 10, adds strength to the view, here
set
forth, that se'et (txeW;) refers to a 'high
relief' or a
‘rough’
eruption—‘raising’ the skin as it were. The
absence
of any reference to a 'rough eruption,' in the case
of
the first variety of sara’at, and the
emphasis upon its
being
on the contrary, 'deeper than the skin', suggests
an
identification with the skin disease vitiligo,
which--
common
in tropical countries--is characterized by bright
white
spots, the hairs of which lose their colour and become
white'.154
In the description of this first variety
of sara’at
the
stress is laid upon the hair at the spot turning 'white',
and
the expression ‘deeper than the skin’ would be a
natural
way of describing a spot that seems to be in the
skin,
in contrast to an eruption that appears, over the skin.
The
addition represented by verse 4, where the phrase
‘shining
white’ spot is introduced; suggests, by implication,
that
in verse 3, the nega' is white and
shining, since the
point
in verse 4 is that the spot is not clearly defined as
in
the skin, i.e. too faint as yet to be recognized as such,
154 Schamberg, l. c., p. 4. of reprint: from Phil. Polyclinic, Vol. VII, Nov.
19-26,
= Biblical World, l899, p. 163.
408 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
and
that the hair has not turned white. The conclusion
thus
reached, and which is here submitted to students of
medicine,
is that the Biblical sara'at' in the
original form
of
the sara’at Torah consists of two varieties,
and that
these
two varieties represent a confusion of two distinct
skin
diseases: the first variety, regarded as less serious,
while
rendering the victim for the time being ‘unclean',
is
vitiligo; the second variety,
characterized as chronic
sara’at (Lev. 13. 11), is the leuke: or the most serious variety
of
lepra or psoriasis. Verses 6-8, forming a later addition,
would
represent a further attempt to differentiate the leuke
from
other varieties, and the emphasis laid upon its ‘being
faint',
in verse 6, naturally suggests a description of alphos,
which
case, the white colour of the eruption is not as
pronounced.155
Lastly, verses 12-13 representing again
other
addition for purposes of further differentiation, and
describing
marks which spread over the whole body,
‘turning
it all white', as the gloss in verse 13 ex-
plains,
would represent a form of vitiligo in
which the
disease
spreads until large areas of the body are involved,
and
even the entire body. Cases are on record of negroes
affected
by this disease turning entirely white.156 The
affection
is an entirely harmless one, and in accord with
this
we find the verdict in Lev. 13. 14, 'he is clean'.
To sum up, then we have two forms of genuine sara’at
in
the original sara’at legislation; one,
the milder form,
being
a form of vitiligo, the other, the
chronic form; being
leuke. In the later additions to the original sara’at section,
155 Vera. 6-8 representing an addition to
the original sara’at legislation;
naturally
no special reference is made to the spot being a a rising eruption
or
a mark that appears on the skin.
156 Schamberg, l. c.
THE
SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 409
we
have (a) a form of alphos apparently
described, which
if
it spreads is pronounced as 'unclean', and (b) a form of
vitiligo, in which the whole
flesh turns white, and which
is
pronounced ‘clean’. In the balance of
the chapter,
Lev.
13, as well as in the additions to Lev. 14, represented
by
verses 33-47, the use of sara'at is
erroneous, or rather
represents
the later use of the term as a generic one-
synonymous
with nega’, ‘mark’--to designate any
kind
of
a spot, whether on any part of the human body, or
on
a garment, on a stuff, or on the walls of a house, which
is
regarded as ‘unclean’. So far as 'marks'
on a human
being
are concerned, Lev. 13. 18-43 includes boils and
burns,
open sores on the head or beard, baldness in various
stages,
and 'faint white spots' that form merely a tetter
(bohak). Boils and burns that leave ‘eruptions’
(se'et),
white
or shining, or reddish, showing symptoms of the
second
variety of sara'at, i. e. leuke, are unclean, whereas
the
mere scabs from boils or burns are clean. The sore
(netek) which shows the symptoms of the
first variety of
sara'at (lepra alphos)--marks appearing to be in the skin
and
the hair turning yellowish--is unclean. Baldness
and
a mere tetter (bokah) finally are
clean, but the appear-
ance
of an 'eruption' (se'et) on the bald
spot raises the
suspicion,
according to what is probably a very late addition
to
the texts (ver. 42), of its being sara'at,
presumably of
the
second variety.
The oldest ritual, Lev. 14. 1-8a, which in its
original
form,
as has been shown, was a method of exorcising
sara'at, when it became a
purification ritual performed
at
the time of healing, could have been applied only to
the
curable variety of sara'at--i. e. to vitiligo, and, if we
include
the later addition to the legislation, also to alphos.
410 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
It
was then naturally extended to all the other skin troubles
mentioned
in Lev. 13, which made the victim unclean until
he
was healed. On the other hand, the law of being
excluded
from human society, warning the people of one's
approach
by calling 'unclean', keeping one's mouth covered,
allowing
one's hair to grow long, not changing one's clothes--
while
applicable to all during the period of their being
‘unclean'
must have been devised originally for those who
suffered
from the 'chronic' and incurable variety of lepra,
i.e.
leuke. For those suffering from vitiligo, isolation
outside
of the camp until the demon had been exorcised.
i.
e. until the healing had taken place, was presumably all
that
was required.
We are now in a better position to consider the
other
passages
in the Old Testament where sara'at is
mentioned.
In
accord with the original sara'at
legislation, the one so
afflicted
(Num. 5. 2, sara’at) is to be removed
from the
camp,
but the fact that he is mentioned together with one
having
a 'running' sore (bzA--also discussed in Lev. 15)
indicates,
not only that Num. 5 assumes the existence of
Lev.
13-15, but also that the one who suffers from sara'at
is
not necessarily a chronic or even a very serious sufferer.
Deut.
24.8 also assumes more or less detailed regulations
regarding
the sara'at, and since verses 8 and 9
interrupt
the
order of subjects in this chapter, it may be safely
assumed
that we here have later insertions. Verse 9 is a
reference
to the punishment of Miriam with sara'at,
which
is
described Num. 12. 10-13.157 If the phrase (ver. 10b)
'and
Miriam was stricken with sara'at like
snow' belongs
157 Num. 12. 14-16 is a reference to Lev.
13. 4, though another disease,
which
seem; to be 'jaundice', is indicated in ver. 14 a that is not mentioned
in
any of the codes.
THE
SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY’ LAWS--JASTROW 411
to
the original text, then we could say with reasonable
certainty
that the sara’at in this case was of
the first
and
milder variety--a form of vitiligo;
but the words
stricken
with sara’at like snow" (gl,wAKa
tfaracom;)
seem to
be
quoted from Exod. 4. 6, and are therefore in all
probability
a gloss to the latter part of Num. 12. 10,
'And
Aaron turned to Miriam and behold she was
stricken
with sara’at'. To this a commentator
added
as
an explanation the case of Exod. 4. 6, where the
hand
of Moses is described as becoming 'white as snow'
(gl,w,.Ka
tfaracom;),
and then is instantly restored to its normal
condition--as
one of the signs to be used by him in case
he
should meet with unbelief in his mission upon reaching
the
attendant of Elisha (2 Kings 5. 27) would seem to
show
that vitiligo was intended in this
case which would,
therefore,
apply also to Naaman' (2 Kings 6. 2), since it is
the
latter's disease which is transferred as a punishment for
greed
to Gehazi and his offspring (ver. 27). We may per-
haps
assume this also to be the case in 2 Kings 7. 3, though
the
text is vague in its tone. On the other hand, King
Azariah
(or Uzziah, as he is called in 2 Chron. 26) appears
to
have been smitten with the second and chronic variety
of
sara'at, i. e. leuke, for he remains afflicted till his death,
and
is obliged to dwell in a separate house (2 Kings 15. 5;
2
Chron. 26. 21).158
There is, of course, not the slightest reason
for assuming
that
Job's sickness, or the one with which Hezekiah is
smitten,
represented any form of sara’at, and
much less
leprosy.
In both cases the disease is specified
as 'boils'
158 So special importance
needs to be attached to the statement in
Chron.
26. 19, 20 that the sara’at 'broke
out on his forehead'.
412 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
(Isa.
38. 21 and Job 2. 7), just as in the case in one of
the
plagues of
technical
term aba'bu’ot (an Egyptian word?) is
added.
Indeed,
it is noticeable in the large list of diseases which
are
threatened as a curse (Deut. 28) in case of a dis-
obedience
to the laws, that sara'at is not
mentioned,
whereas 'boils'--specified as 'Egyptian boils'--are
included
(ver.
27) with others that are expressly declared to be
'incurable'159--a
valuable indication that sara'at
after all
was
not counted among the most serious diseases, and that
the
special legislation is rather a reflex of the common
occurrence
of the disease in its two (or possibly more)
varieties,
which made it necessary to make provisions for
those
so stricken, and who were regarded as unclean merely
because
every real disease--due to demoniac possession--
made
the victim unclean. An affliction that was 'clean'
was
not really a disease, according to medical science in
this
primitive stage of empirical knowledge.
A question that should at least be touched upon
at
the
close of this analysis is the one raised by Eerdmans's
recent
investigation of the entire book of Leviticus160 as
to
the age of the legislation in Lev. 13-14. With Eerdmans's
general
thesis that Leviticus, as in fact the whole of the
159 The case of Job and Hezekiah are,
therefore, exceptional, and are
portrayed
as miraculous through Divine intervention.
160 Alttestamenliche
Studien, IV, 'Das Buch Leviticus' (
See
especially pp. 68-73. The grounds on which Wiener, Origin of the
Pentateuch, p. 76, assumes an
early origin for Lev. 13 and 14 do not seem
to
me to be of any value. In many points, especially when he pleads for
the
early character of many of the laws, Wiener is right, but he is not as
'original'
as he thinks he is in his opposition to the critical school, and his
method
of argumentation, even where his conclusions are correct, is most
defective,
and sometimes unfair. I shall take up Wiener's contentions at
some
future time.
THE
SO-CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 413
legislation
in the Priestly Code, contains pre-exilic elements,
I
am in full accord. The analysis of Lev. 13-14, as set
forth
in this article, lends further support to Eerdmans's
thesis,
which as a matter of fact, has been held even by
those
who claimed post-exilic dates for the final form of
the
Priestly Code. It is evident that a purification ritual
such
as Lev. 14. 1-8a, which contains distinct traces of
having
once been a method of exorcising a disease, must
revert
to a very ancient period; and even as a purification
ritual
it belongs to a time anterior to the period when
a
sacrifice of some kind was regarded as essential to a
removal
of ‘uncleanness’. Indeed, the whole
conception
of
disease as a state of ‘uncleanness’ belongs to the time
when
disease was supposed to be due to some 'unclean'
demon
that had found its way into one's body; and the
'uncleanness'
at this stage of thought has nothing to do
with
hygienic impurity, as little as the demon theory of
disease
has anything to do with the modern germ theory
of
disease, albeit the former seems to suggest the latter.
The
references to the 'camp' and 'tent' in Lev. 14 also
point
to early social stages, and there is no reason to
assume
that these terms are introduced into a late legislation
with
a view of giving the impression that they are old,
or
in other words, as a deliberate invention to uphold a
tradition
of the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuchal legislation.
If
such had been the deliberate intent of the compilers
they
would not have committed the inconsistency of intro-
ducing
the word 'city' in the same chapter (Lev. 14. 40,
41,
45). The naive and non-scientific manner of describing
the
two varieties of sara’at and the
almost total absence
of
technical terms in the original sara'at
legislation, with
merely
feeble attempts to differentiate two totally different
414. THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
diseases,
are further indications that point to an early,
certainly
to a pre-exilic origin, for the beginnings of the
sara’at legislation. Even the
additions in Lev. 13. 1-43
may
in large part belong to the pre-exilic period. This
appears
to be certainly the case with the additions to the
first
part of the chapter, Lev. 13. 1-18, with the possible
exception
of some glosses and of the general use of sara'at
for
any unclean ‘spot’ on the skin, which I believe to be of
comparatively
late origin, while the supplementary sections,
Lev.
13. 47-58, concerning spots on garments, &c., and
certainly
the still later section on spots on walls of houses,
Lev,
14. 33-48, may, with great probability, be put down
as,
post-exilic. This applies also to the ritualistic sections
prescribing
the sacrifice of animals as an integral part of
the
purification ceremonial, Lev. 14. 10-20, as well as
to
Lev. 14- 21-31, which is of the same character though
possibly
embodying, as above suggested,161 traces of an
earlier
and simpler sacrificial ritual. Naturally, the purifica-
tion
ritual attached to Lev. 14. 33-48 ('spots' on walls of
houses),
though taken over from the old and certainly pre-
exilic
ritual, Lev. 14. 1-8a, forming, part of the original
sara'at legislation, represents
an addition that cannot be
earlier
than the section, Lev. 14. 33-48, itself.
As for the chronological sequence of the
numerous
sections
superimposed upon the original sara'at
legislation,
it
seems safe to regard Lev. 14. 33-47, and the attached
ritual,
verses 48-53, as the latest additions made after the
insertion
of the sections in Lev. 13, i. e. verses 18-44,
between
the diagnosis of the two forms of sara'at
and the
purification
ritual, Lev. 14. 1-8a; otherwise, the section of
sara'at marks on walls of
houses would have found a place
161 See above, p. 379f.
THE
S0-CALLED 'LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 415
before
or after the section, Lev. 13. 47-58, treating of marks
on
garments, &c. The absence of any ritual for the puri-
fication
of marks on garments and stuffs would indicate
an
earlier date than the elaborate ritual, Lev. 14. 10-20,
added
to the second ritual, Lev. 14.8b-9, and superimposed
upon
the first ritual, Lev. 14. 1-8a. This, of course,
carries
with it the later date for the ‘substitute’ sacrifice,
Lev.
14. 21-31, though, as indicated, this may embody
a
simpler and, therefore, earlier ‘sacrificial’ ritual than the
more
complicated one. The order, therefore, would be
(i)
Lev.13. 47-58; (2) Lev. 14. 21-31; (3) Lev. 14. 10-20;
(4)
Lev. 14. 33-53. As for the remaining sections, the
insertions
in Lev. 13. 1-17 represent the earliest attempts
at
elaborating the original sara'at
legislation, while the
five
sections in Lev. 13. 18-44 may very well have been
added
in chronological sequence in the order in which the
sections
are now arranged. It is not, of course, possible to
go
further and specify any definite period at which the
one
or the other of these nine sections was added, beyond
the
general impression one receives from the larger use
of
technical terms (such as netek, bohak, &c.) and the more
detailed
diagnosis in the case of ‘boils’ and ‘burns’, that the
sections
belong to a considerably advanced period of medi-
cal
observation and are, therefore, presumably post-exilic.
This
would carry with it the four sections: (1) Lev. 13.
47-58;
(2) Lev.14. 21-31; (3) Lev. 14.30-20; (4) Lev. 14.
33-53--all
certainly later than the five sections--and the
post-exilic
character of which is suggested by internal
evidence.
I venture, therefore, to claim as pre-exilic not
only
the original sara'at legislation and
the original puri-
fication
rituals, Lev. 14. 1-8c and 8b-9, but also the
elaborated
section, Lev. 13. 1-17, in which the additions
are
dovetailed into the original sara'at
portions.
416 THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Eerdmans,162 to be sure, would go
much further and
place
the entire two chapters in the pre-exilic period, but
his
argumentation is not convincing because he under-
estimates
the complicated character of the composition of
Lev.
13-14. The fact, e. g., that the style and language of
the
section on marks in garments, &c. (Lev. 13. 47-59),
agree
with Lev. 13. 1-46 is due to direct imitation precludes
its
use as an argument for the unity of Lev. 13; and in
the
same way, Lev. 14.33-53 ('marks' on walls of houses)
imitates
Lev. 13, and intentionally introduces so far as
possible
the same terms. Even if my analysis of
Lev. 13-14
should
not prove to be correct in all details, I feel safe
in
saying that the existence of an original sara'at
legislation
consisting
of Lev. 13, 2-3; 9-11 (with some additions),
45-6,
and followed immediately by a ‘purification’ or
‘dismissal’
ritual, Lev. 14. 1-8 a, has been definitely
demonstrated.
No less significant is the fact that has been
proved163
of the distinction between a ritual performed
outside
of a sanctuary and one that is to be performed at
an
altar. This points not only to a very early age for the
original
sara’at legislation, but also to a
considerable interval,
of
time between the age of the two rituals. Moreover, the
'sacrificial'
ritual is based on a totally different point of
view.
The fact that provision is made for carrying out
the
later sacrificial ritual in
to
occurrences of sara’at in other parts
of the country, is
due,
of course, to the theoretical basis of the Priestly Code
that
there is only one legislative centre at which sacrifice
can
be brought. Instead of concluding, as Eerdmans does,
that
the legislation originated in pre-exilic days in sole
connexion
with the sanctuary at
162 l.c.,
pp. 38-73. 163 See above, p. 375.
THE
SO-CALLED ' LEPROSY' LAWS--JASTROW 417
exilic
legislation would necessarily have regard to Jewish
settlements
outside of the capital, the more obvious deduc-
tion
would be that the Priestly Code is to a large extent
an
'ideal' compilation made with the express purpose of
adapting
the older and younger practices to a theoretical
centre.
That animal sacrifices were brought in pre-exilic
days,
and at a very early period must, of course, be admitted,
and
the emphasis on the 'tent of meeting’ in the ritual of
Lev.
14. 10-31 may be taken as an indication that the
basis
of the ritual is pre-exilic; but the frequent substitution
of
‘before Jahweh’ in the section would have no meaning
unless
one assumed that it represents the endeavour again
to
apply older practices--considerably elaborated and
transferred
to Jahweh's one and only legitimate sanctuary
at
face
with the distinctly post-exilic ideal that underlies the
legislation
of the Priestly Code in its present form. It is
characteristic
of the gradual growth of legislation to retain
in
a conservative spirit the language and the form of earlier
legislation,
even when inconsistent with later conditions.
Just
as laws are never actually abrogated in ancient
codes,
but carried along with modifications that at times
totally
change the character of ancient statutes even 'to the
point
of virtually abrogating them164 so formulas are carried
over
and given a new interpretation through glosses or
explanatory
comments. The substitution of ‘before Jahweh’
164 A good case in point is the legislation
regarding slants, in the so-called
Book
of the Covenant. Exod. 21. 1-6, which theoretically recognizes
slavery,
but changes it practically to an indenture of six years. The old law
remains,
but it is so modified as to receive an entirely different character.
In
the same way it is theoretically assumed (vers. 8-11) that the old law
allowing
a man to sell his daughter as a 'handmaid' remains in force, but
it
is practically abrogated by conditions that chance its nature.
418 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
for
‘tent of meeting’, together with the frequent addition
of
the one phrase to the other is, therefore, an illustration
of
the way in which the old is carried over and combined
with
the new. It is impossible at this point to enter into
further
detached criticism of Eerdmans's position, but enough
has
been brought forward, I think, to make it clear that, while
he
has shown more satisfactorily than his predecessors how
much
in the Pentateuchal legislation is old, his main con-
tention
that the critical theory associated chiefly with the
names
of Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen165 must be set
aside
because based on erroneous assumptions, is not accept-
able,
partly because he has not carried the analysis of the
Pentateuchal
laws far enough, and, therefore, under-estimates
their
complicated character, and partly because he draws
untenable
conclusions from the material itself even as he
has
set it forth. The critical theory is of course subject to
modification
through further researches, but its basis rests
on
too firm foundations to be seriously menaced by the
recent
attacks made upon it.
165 See Eerdmans's Introduction to Alttestamentliche Forschungen, I.
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: