Leviticus 13:6

Lev 13:6 And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day: and, behold, [if] the plague [be] somewhat dark, [and] the plague spread not in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean: it [is but] a scab: and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean.

Ver. 6. It is but a scab.] Such as may be "the spot of God’s children." {Deu 32:5} Sin makes wicked men the object of God’s hatred, the saints of his pity; as we hate poison in a toad, but we pity it in a man.

And he shall wash his clothes.] The best cannot wash in innocency; he must therefore wash in tears. {Isa 1:16} God also will set in and wash such with the blood of his Son.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Lev 13:6. Dark — Contrary to the white colour of the leprosy. But the word may be rendered, have contracted itself, and thus the opposition seems to be most clear to the spreading of itself. He shall wash his clothes — Though it was no leprosy, to teach us, that no sin is so small as not to need to be washed by the blood of Christ, which was the thing designed by all these washings.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Hebrew, shall cleanse him.

As having the skin drawn together, or blackish.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

(6) And the priest shall look on him again.—If, on further examination at the end of another week, the priest finds that the bright spot looks darker, and that it has not spread, he is to pronounce the patient clean, and set him at liberty, since it was simply an ordinary scurf; but though not leprous, the eruption indicated some impurity in his blood, and he had therefore to wash his garments.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day,.... On the second seventh day, at the end of a fortnight from his being first presented to him, and shut up:

and, behold, if the plague be somewhat dark; the spot be not so bright, or so white as it was at first; though Aben Ezra observes, that indeed many wise men say, that is as signifying dark, and the testimony or proof they bring is Gen 27:1 but according to my opinion, adds he, the word is the reverse of to spread; and the sense is, if the plague does not spread itself in another place; and so some translators render it "contracted", or "contracts itself" (h): and this seems best to agree with what follows:

and the plague spread not in the skin; but is as it was when first viewed, after waiting fourteen days, and making observations on it:

the priest shall pronounce him clean; that is, from leprosy, otherwise there was an impure disorder on him, a scabious one:

it is but a scab; which is the name, Jarchi says, of a clean plague or stroke, that is, in comparison of the leprosy, otherwise such cannot be said with any propriety to be clean. Ben Gersom better explains it, it is a white scab, but not of the kind of leprosy, although it is found as the whiteness of the bright spot; but there are not seen in it the signs of leprosy, the hair is not turned white, nor has the plague increased:

and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean; for seeing he was obliged to be shut up, as Jarchi observes, he is called unclean, and stood in need of dipping, that is, his body and his clothes into water; so the people of God, though they are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and are pronounced clean through it, yet since they have their spots and scabs, they have need to have their conversation garments continually washed in the blood of the Lamb.

(h) "contracta est", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator; "contraxerit sese", some in Vatablus.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Somewhat dark - Rather, somewhat dim: that is, if the spot is dying away.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Obscure. Some translate the Hebrew "retired," with the Syriac and Arabic versions. --- Scab, "an ebullition," or pustule. (Theodoret; St. Jerome in Nah. ii.) --- Clothes, and himself. See Chap. xi. 40.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

If the plague be somewhat dark; which is opposed to the white colour of the leprosy. But the word may be rendered, have contracted itself, or, be restrained or confined to its former place and bigness; and thus the opposition seems to be most clear to the spreading of itself, mentioned both in the foregoing verse, and in the following clause.

He shall wash his clothes, though it was no leprosy, but a scab only; to teach us, that no sin was so small which did not need to be washed by the blood of Christ, which was the thing designed by all these washings.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. Pronounce him clean — Ceremonially pure, though he may have other loathsome diseases, and be morally vile. The action of the priest, literally translated, is, to make him clean, as in the third verse he is to make the leper unclean. In both cases the action is declarative and not causative or judicial. This suggests the proper meaning of the apostolic binding and loosing in Mat_16:19, and the remitting and retaining of sins in Joh_20:23.

He shall wash his clothes — “As the very cause that had led to his being suspected showed that there was some impurity in his blood, a slight purification was prescribed, the moral effect of which would naturally be to teach that the very appearance of evil is an adequate ground of humiliation to any one that fears God.” — Bush.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Dark - Contrary to the white colour of the leprosy. But the word may be rendered, have contracted itself, and thus the opposition seems to be most clear as the spreading of itself. He shall wash his clothes - Though it was no leprosy, to teach us, that no sin is so small as not to need to be washed by the blood of Christ, which was the thing designed by all these washings.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

כֵּהֶה means it has become paler than its former color — consequently if it remains in its color or if it has spread he is unclean.

מספחת — This is the name of a clean leprous disease.

וכבס את בגדיו וטהר AND HE SHALL WASH HIS GARMENTS AND BE CLEAN — Since he required shutting up he was termed (was regarded as coming under the term) “unclean” (although it now transpires that he was clean), and he must undergo immersion in a ritual bath.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

AND THE PRIEST SHALL SEE HIM A SECOND TIME THE SEVENTH DAY, AND BEHOLD, IF THE PLAGUE BE ‘KEIHAH’ (DIM), AND THE PLAGUE BE NOT SPREAD IN THE SKIN, THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM CLEAN. Rashi commented: “Keihah means it has become paler (plague) is masculine, and keihah (pale) is in the feminine, the word keihah cannot be an adjective to nega [meaning: “if the plague is pale”]. Instead, it must mean, as Rashi points out, “if the plague has become pale,” serving as a verb. than its [former] color. [This allows the inference] that if the plague remains in its former color and has not extended in the skin, he is impure.”This indeed is the sense of the verse. But the interpretation of our Rabbis is not so, for we have been taught in the Mishnah: “To cause to be put in quarantine [for a second week] such a plague which continues unchanged at the end of the first week; to pronounce pure such a plague which continues unchanged by the end of the second week.” And in the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have expressly said that in the case of garments, if the plague is at a stay at the end of the first week, they are to be put in quarantine [for a second week], and if it be at a stay at the end of the second week, they are to be burnt; but in the case of a person, if the plague be at a stay at the end of the first week the priest is to put him in quarantine for another week, but if at the end of the second week it is still at a stay he is to pronounce him pure. And in Tractate Megillah the Rabbis have further said: “This excludes a leper who has been put in quarantine for a week, whose state of leprosy is determined not by his bodily condition, but merely by days.” ). Now if it were necessary that the plague should become dim, then his purity would be dependent upon his bodily condition! Rashi himself explained it there in such language, saying that the leper’s purity is not dependent on the physical state of the plague, for if at the end of seven days a symptom of impurity — white hair or extension of the plague — is not found, the priest is to pronounce him pure although the plague has stayed in its appearance, that is at the end of the second week.. The discussion here relates only to the end of the second week.Rather, this is what the Sages said: at the end of the second week, whether the plague has paled from the color of snow to [the shade of white of] the lime used in the Sanctuary, or like the white of an egg’s membrane, or even if it has become stronger, namely, that it was at first like the lime [used in the Sanctuary] and then [at the end of the second week] it had become bright-white like snow, and all the more so if it remained in its original color — as long as it did not spread in the skin, the priest pronounces it pure. If so, the interpretation of this verse is as follows: “if the plague be ‘keihah,’ meaning that it has turned into the color of another plague, such as from that of snow to that of lime, since it has not spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is but a scab.” For in order that one should not say, “since the plague has changed into the color of another plague it must be inspected from anew,” Scripture therefore expressly taught that he is deemed pure. The same law applies if the color became stronger, since Scripture has already taught you that a change from color to color is not a symptom of impurity, but rather is considered as if it is at a stay, and as long as it did not spread in the skin [the afflicted person] is pure. Should you ask: “But why did Scripture not mention expressly the case of a change to a stronger color [as being pure], and we would know that this is all the more so if it became paler?” [The answer is that Scripture] came to teach you that although it became paler, if it spread in the skin he is nevertheless impure. Now the meaning of the word keihah is that the plague has become paler, changing to one of the colors of leprosy-signs, such as from that of snow to that of an egg’s membrane, which can still be a leprosy-sign. But if it has become paler than the colors of leprosy-signs, in that case the person is already healed, and there is no longer a plague; thus even a spreading thereof no longer renders him impure at all. In a similar manner to this presentation has it been explained in the Torath Kohanim.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.