8 In connection with the leper's disease, take care to keep and do every detail of the teaching of the priests, the Levites: as I gave them orders, so you are to do.
This is the law of the leper on the day when he is made clean: he is to be taken to the priest;
And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, If a man has on his skin a growth or a mark or a white place, and it becomes the disease of a leper, let him be taken to Aaron the priest, or to one of the priests, his sons; And if, when the priest sees the mark on his skin, the hair on the place is turned white and the mark seems to go deeper than the skin, it is the mark of a leper: and the priest, after looking at him, will say that he is unclean. But if the mark on his skin is white, and does not seem to go deeper than the skin, and the hair on it is not turned white, then the priest will keep him shut up for seven days; And the priest is to see him on the seventh day; and if, in his opinion, the place on his skin has not become worse and is not increased in size, then the priest will keep him shut up for seven days more: And the priest is to see him again on the seventh day; and if the mark is less bright and is not increased on his skin, then let the priest say that he is clean: it is only a skin-mark, and after his clothing has been washed he will be clean. But if the size of the mark on his skin is increased after he has been seen by the priest, let him go to the priest again: And if, after looking at him, he sees that the mark is increased in his skin, let the priest say that he is unclean; he is a leper. When the disease of a leper is seen on a man, let him be taken to the priest; And if the priest sees that there is a white growth on the skin, and the hair is turned white, and there is diseased flesh in the growth, It is an old disease in the skin of his flesh, and the priest will say that he is unclean; he will not have to be shut up, for he is clearly unclean. And if the disease comes out all over his skin, from his head to his feet, as far as the priest is able to see, And if the priest sees that all his flesh is covered with the leper's disease, the priest will say that he is clean: it is all turned white, he is clean. But whenever diseased flesh is seen on him, he will be unclean. And when the priest sees the diseased flesh he will say that he is unclean; the diseased flesh is unclean, he is a leper. Or if the diseased flesh is turned again and changed to white then he is to come to the priest, And the priest will see him: and if the place is turned white, then the priest will say that he is free from the disease. And if a bad place has come out on the skin and is well again, And on the same place there is a white growth of a bright mark, red and white, then let the priest see it; And after looking at it, if it seems to go deeper than the skin, and the hair on it is turned white, then the priest will say that the man is unclean: it is the leper's disease, it has come out in the bad place. But if, after looking at it, he sees that there are no white hairs on it, and it is not deeper than the skin, and it is not very bright, then let the priest keep him shut up for seven days: And if it is increasing on the skin, the priest will say that he is unclean: it is a disease. But if the bright mark keeps in the same place and gets no greater, it is the mark of the old wound, and the priest will say that he is clean. Or if there is a burn on the skin of the flesh, and if the diseased flesh in the burn becomes a bright place, red and white or white, The priest is to see it: and if the hair on the bright place is turned white and it seems to go deeper than the skin, he is a leper: it has come out in the burn, and the priest will say that he is unclean: it is the leper's disease. But if, after looking at it, the priest sees that there is no white hair on the bright place, and it is not deeper than the skin, and is not very bright, then let the priest keep him shut up for seven days: And the priest is to see him again on the seventh day; if it is increased in the skin, then the priest will say that he is unclean: it is the leper's disease. And if the bright place keeps the same size and gets no greater on the skin, but is less bright, it is the effect of the burn, and the priest will say that he is clean: it is the mark of the burn. And when a man or a woman has a disease on the head, or in the hair of the chin, Then the priest is to see the diseased place: and if it seems to go deeper than the skin, and if there is thin yellow hair in it, then the priest will say that he is unclean: he has the mark of the leper's disease on his head or in the hair of his chin. And after looking at the diseased place, if it does not seem to go deeper than the skin, and there is no black hair in it, then the priest will have him shut up for seven days: And on the seventh day the priest will see the place: and if it is not increased, and there is no yellow hair in it, and it does not seem to go deeper than the skin, Then his hair is to be cut off, but not on the diseased place, and he is to be shut up for seven days more: And on the seventh day the priest will see the place: and if it is not increased, and does not seem to go deeper than the skin, the priest will say that he is clean: and after his clothing has been washed he will be clean. But if the disease in his skin becomes worse after he has been made clean, Then the priest is to see him: and if the mark is increased, the priest, without looking for the yellow hair, will say that he is unclean. But if, in his opinion, the growth is stopped, and black hair has come up on it, the disease has gone; he is clean and the priest will say that he is clean. And if a man or a woman has bright marks on the skin of their flesh, that is, bright white marks, Then the priest is to see them: and if the white marks on their skin are not very bright, it is a skin disease which has come out on the skin; he is clean. And if a man's hair has come out and he has no hair, still he is clean. And if the hair has gone from the front part of his head, so that he has no hair there, still he is clean. But if, on his head or on his brow, where he has no hair, there is a red and white place, it is the disease of the leper coming out on his head or on his brow. Then if the priest sees that the growth of the disease has become red and white on his head or on his brow where there is no hair, like the mark in the skin of a leper; He is a leper and unclean; the priest is to say that he is most certainly unclean: the disease is in his head. And the leper who has the disease on him is to go about with signs of grief, with his hair loose and his mouth covered, crying, Unclean, unclean. While the disease is on him, he will be unclean. He is unclean: let him keep by himself, living outside the tent-circle.
And on the seventh day he is to have all the hair cut off his head and his chin and over his eyes--all his hair is to be cut off--and he will have his clothing washed and his body bathed in water and he will be clean. And on the eighth day let him take two male lambs, without any marks on them, and one female lamb of the first year, without a mark, and three tenth parts of an ephah of the best meal, mixed with oil, and one log of oil.
And Jesus said to him, See that you say nothing about this to anyone; but go and let the priest see you and make the offering which was ordered by Moses, for a witness to them.
And he gave him orders: Say nothing to any man, but let the priest see you and give an offering so that you may be made clean, as the law of Moses says, and for a witness to them.
Worthy.Bible » Commentaries » Keil & Delitzsch Commentary » Commentary on Deuteronomy 24
Commentary on Deuteronomy 24 Keil & Delitzsch Commentary
Deuteronomy 24:1-5 contain two laws concerning the relation of a man to his wife. The first (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) has reference to divorce. In these verses, however, divorce is not established as a right; all that is done is, that in case of a divorce a reunion with the divorced wife is forbidden, if in the meantime she had married another man, even though the second husband had also put her away, or had died. The four verses form a period, in which Deuteronomy 24:1-3 are the clauses of the protasis, which describe the matter treated about; and Deuteronomy 24:4 contains the apodosis, with the law concerning the point in question. If a man married a wife, and he put her away with a letter of divorce, because she did not please him any longer, and the divorced woman married another man, and he either put her away in the same manner or died, the first husband could not take her as his wife again. The putting away (divorce) of a wife with a letter of divorce, which the husband gave to the wife whom he put away, is assumed as a custom founded upon tradition. This tradition left the question of divorce entirely at the will of the husband: “ if the wife does not find favour in his eyes (i.e., does not please him), because he has found in her something shameful ” (Deuteronomy 23:15). ערוה , nakedness, shame, disgrace (Isaiah 20:4; 1 Samuel 20:30); in connection with דּבר , the shame of a thing, i.e., a shameful thing (lxx ἄσχημον πρᾶγμα ; Vulg . aliquam faetiditatem ). The meaning of this expression as a ground of divorce was disputed even among the Rabbins. Hillel's school interpret it in the widest and most lax manner possible, according to the explanation of the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3, “for every cause.” They no doubt followed the rendering of Onkelos , פתגם עבירת , the transgression of a thing; but this is contrary to the use of the word ערוה , to which the interpretation given by Shammai adhered more strictly. His explanation of דּבר ערות is “ rem impudicam, libidinem, lasciviam, impudicitiam .” Adultery, to which some of the Rabbins would restrict the expression, is certainly not to be thought of, because this was to be punished with death.
(Note: For the different views of the Rabbins upon this subject, see Mishnah tract. Gittin ix. 10; Buxtorf, de sponsal. et divort. pp. 88ff.; Selden, uxor ebr. l. iii. c. 18 and 20; and Lightfoot, horae ebr. et talm. ad Matth. v. 31f.)
כּריתת ספר , βιβλίον ἀποστασίου , a letter of divorce; כּריתת , hewing off, cutting off, sc., from the man, with whom the wife was to be one flesh (Genesis 2:24). The custom of giving letters of divorce was probably adopted by the Israelites in Egypt, where the practice of writing had already found its way into all the relations of life.
(Note: The rabbinical rules on the grounds of divorce and the letter of divorce, according to Maimonides , have been collected by Surenhusius, ad Mishn. tr. Gittin, c. 1 (T. iii. pp. 322f. of the Mishnah of Sur. ), where different specimens of letters of divorce are given; the latter also in Lightfoot, l.c. )
The law that the first husband could not take his divorced wife back again, if she had married another husband in the meantime, even supposing that the second husband was dead, would necessarily put a check upon frivolous divorces. Moses could not entirely abolish the traditional custom, if only “because of the hardness of the people's hearts” ( Matthew 19:8). The thought, therefore, of the impossibility of reunion with the first husband, after the wife had contracted a second marriage, would put some restraint upon a frivolous rupture of the marriage tie: it would have this effect, that whilst, on the one hand, the man would reflect when inducements to divorce his wife presented themselves, and would recall a rash act if it had been performed, before the wife he had put away had married another husband; on the other hand, the wife would yield more readily to the will of her husband, and seek to avoid furnishing him with an inducement for divorce. But this effect would be still more readily produced by the reason assigned by Moses, namely, that the divorced woman was defiled ( הטּמּאה , Hothpael , as in Numbers 1:47) by her marriage with a second husband. The second marriage of a woman who had been divorced is designated by Moses a defilement of the woman, primarily no doubt with reference to the fact that the emissio seminis in sexual intercourse rendered unclean, though not merely in the sense of such a defilement as was removed in the evening by simple washing, but as a moral defilement, i.e., blemishing, desecration of the sexual communion with was sanctified by marriage, in the same sense in which adultery is called a defilement in Leviticus 18:20 and Numbers 5:13-14. Thus the second marriage of a divorced woman was placed implicite upon a par with adultery, and some approach made towards the teaching of Christ concerning marriage: “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32). - But if the second marriage of a divorced woman was a moral defilement, of course the wife could not marry the first again even after the death of her second husband, not only because such a reunion would lower the dignity of the woman, and the woman would appear too much like property, which could be disposed of at one time and reclaimed at another ( Schultz ), but because the defilement of the wife would be thereby repeated, and even increased, as the moral defilement which the divorced wife acquired through the second marriage was not removed by a divorce from the second husband, nor yet by his death. Such defilement was an abomination before Jehovah, by which they would cause the land to sin, i.e., stain it with sin, as much as by the sins of incest and unnatural licentiousness (Leviticus 18:25).
Attached to this law, which is intended to prevent a frivolous severance of the marriage tie, there is another in Deuteronomy 24:5, which was of a more positive character, and adapted to fortify the marriage bond. The newly married man was not required to perform military service for a whole year; “ and there shall not come (anything) upon him with regard to any matter .” The meaning of this last clause is to be found in what follows: “ Free shall he be for his house for a year ,” i.e., they shall put no public burdens upon him, that he may devote himself entirely to his newly established domestic relations, and be able to gladden his wife (compare Deuteronomy 20:7).
Various Prohibitions . - Deuteronomy 24:6. “ No man shall take in pledge the handmill and millstone, for he (who does this) is pawning life .” רחים , the handmill; רכב , lit., the runner, i.e., the upper millstone. Neither the whole mill nor the upper millstone was to be asked for as a pledge, by which the mill would be rendered useless, since the handmill was indispensable for preparing the daily food for the house; so that whoever took them away injured life itself, by withdrawing what was indispensable to the preservation of life. The mill is mentioned as one specimen of articles of this kind, like the clothing in Exodus 22:25-26, which served the poor man as bed-clothes also. Breaches of this commandment are reproved in Amos 2:8; Job 22:6; Proverbs 20:16; Proverbs 22:27; Proverbs 27:13.
Deuteronomy 24:7-9
Repetition of the law against man-stealing (Exodus 21:16). - Deuteronomy 24:8, Deuteronomy 24:9. The command, “ Take heed by the plague of leprosy to observe diligently and to do according to all that the priests teach thee ,” etc., does not mean, that when they saw signs of leprosy they were to be upon their guard, to observe everything that the priests directed them, as Knobel and many others suppose. For, in the first place, the reference to the punishment of Miriam with leprosy is by no means appropriate to such a thought as this, since Miriam did not act in opposition to the priests after she had been smitten with leprosy, but brought leprosy upon herself as a punishment, by her rebellion against Moses (Numbers 12:10.). And in the second place, this view cannot be reconciled with בּנגע השּׁמר , since השּׁמר with בּ , either to be upon one's guard against (before) anything (2 Samuel 20:10), or when taken in connection with בּנפשׁ , to beware by the soul, i.e., for the sake of the worth of the soul ( Jeremiah 17:21). The thought here, therefore, is, “Be on thy guard because of the plague of leprosy,” i.e., that thou dost not get it, have to bear it, as the reward for thy rebellion against what the priests teach according to the commandment of the Lord. “Watch diligently, that thou do not incur the plague of leprosy” ( Vulgate ); or, “that thou do not sin, so as to be punished with leprosy” ( J. H. Michaelis ).
Warning against oppressing the Poor . - Deuteronomy 24:10, Deuteronomy 24:11. If a loan of any kind was lent to a neighbour, the lender was not to go into his house to pledge (take) a pledge, but was to let the borrower bring the pledge out. The meaning is, that they were to leave it to the borrower to give a pledge, and not compel him to give up something as a pledge that might be indispensable to him.
And if the man was in distress ( עני ), the lender was not to lie (sleep) upon his pledge, since the poor man had very often nothing but his upper garment, in which he slept, to give as a pledge. This was to be returned to him in the evening. (A repetition of Exodus 22:25-26.) On the expression, “It shall be righteousness unto thee,” see Deuteronomy 6:25.
They were not to oppress a poor and distressed labourer, by withholding his wages. This command is repeated here from Leviticus 19:13, with special reference to the distress of the poor man. “ And to it (his wages) he lifts up his soul: ” i.e., he feels a longing for it. “Lifts up his soul:” as in Psalms 24:4; Hosea 4:8; Jeremiah 22:27. On Deuteronomy 24:15 , see Deuteronomy 15:9 and James 5:4.
Warning against Injustice . - Deuteronomy 24:16. Fathers were not to be put to death upon (along with) their sons, nor sons upon (along with) their fathers, i.e., they were not to suffer the punishment of death with them for crimes in which they had no share; but every one was to be punished simply for his own sin. This command was important, to prevent an unwarrantable and abusive application of the law which is manifest in the movements of divine justice to the criminal jurisprudence of the lane (Exodus 20:5), since it was a common thing among the heathen nations - e.g., the Persians, Macedonians, and others - for the children and families of criminals to be also put to death (cf. Esther 9:13-14; Herod . iii. 19; Ammian Marcell . xxiii. 6; Curtius , vi. 11, 20, etc.). An example of the carrying out of this law is to be found in 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chronicles 25:4. In Deuteronomy 24:17, Deuteronomy 24:18, the law against perverting the right of strangers, orphans, and widows, is repeated from Exodus 22:20-21, and Exodus 23:9; and an addition is made, namely, that they were not to take a widow's raiment in pledge (cf. Leviticus 19:33-34).
Directions to allow strangers, widows, and orphans to glean in time of harvest (as in Leviticus 19:9-10, and Leviticus 23:22). The reason is given in Deuteronomy 24:22, viz., the same as in Deuteronomy 24:18 and Deuteronomy 15:15.