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