Leviticus 13

Leviticus 13:2

Augustine of Hippo: If a man had a scar of a white sign on his skin, and there was a touch of leprosy on the skin of his color. The text then says, as an exposition, what he had said before so that it could be understood. He had said this: If you had a white scar on your skin. So that we do not think it refers to a scar, as is usually the sign of a healed wound, it tells us that it refers to color when it adds: And there would be a touch of leprosy on the skin of its color. Leaving now what the author understands as a scar, it is a vice of color. With respect to what is called the leprosy touch, it must be said that it is not about the color being felt by touch, but that it is called a leprosy touch as if the person or his body was touched by leprosy, it was stained or flawed It is as they say: “The fever attacked him or he did not attack him.” Finally, it is called touch to the own stain and it is always designated as such. That is why some of our translators have not translated “touch”, but “stain”. Naturally, using this word, the text seems to have a clearer meaning. But the Greek text may not have aften, that is, touch, but?, That is, stain. Therefore, amomon means immaculate. Although Scripture does not usually call amomon only to what refers to color, but to what is clean of all victo. Therefore, the Scripture does not want to be understood by momon the stain of color, but the stain of all vice. I could call spílon what refers only to color. The Apostle used this word, when he says of the Church: It has neither stain nor wrinkle (Eph. 5,27). But the author of Leviticus used neither momon nor spílon, but afén, toque, word that even in the Greek language is little used for the colors and, nevertheless, the Seventies had no difficulty in using it. Why should Latin translators have it? As for the phrase: Scar of a signal, or it is so called because it means something, or rather because it distinguishes the person from the others by a signal, because it makes it striking. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 41 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 13:3

Augustine of Hippo: What do the words mean: The priest will see it and stain it? Is it not he who the patient must come to cure him? Manchará is equivalent to “declare that he is stained”, if the priest sees in him the things that the Scripture says about the stain of leprosy. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 42 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 13:4

Augustine of Hippo: But if in the skin of its color there was a bright white and its visible place was no more sunk than the skin. In the words bright white we have to understand “touch” (tactus), that is, it is a stain of color, not hair. Then he says: But if again the significance in the skin has changed. Now it is called meaning to what before the Latin text called signum (signal) (Cf Leviticus 13, 2). The Greek text, both before and now, uses the same word semasían. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 43 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 13:5

Augustine of Hippo: The priest will separate him for seven days a second time, and the priest will examine him on the seventh day a second time, and if the touch is dark and the touch has not spread on the skin, the priest will purify it, it is a sign. This means that “the priest will declare it pure”, because it is not leprosy, but a sign. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 44 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 13:7

Augustine of Hippo: But if the significance was changed again in the skin, after the priest had examined it to purify it, and it appeared again to the priest and the priest examined it and verified that the significance was changed in the skin, and the priest would stain it: leprosy. Here, too, “it will stain” is equivalent to “declare it stained”. “And” (in the last sentence) is an addition to the language of Scripture. It seems that the text advises that, when the white color has been seen alone and bright, different from the healthy color, the priest examines it again to declare that it is leprosy, that is, that it smears the man declaring him a leper, but only if it is checked that also the hair has turned white and the place of the skin where the white color is is more sunken. And he continues: But if in the skin of its color there was bright white -that is, if the touch were bright white: it calls the stain like that- and its visible place was no more sunk than the skin and the hair would not have turned white, but it is dark - that is, the hair, which is not white - and the priest will separate the affected person for seven days. And on the seventh day the priest will check the touch-the stain that-and if the touch remains before him, but the touch has not spread across the skin - that is, it has no different color or is different from the skin. Then he has healed what was sick. But the text still examines health for another seven days, and therefore says: - And the priest will separate him for seven days a second time - another seven days - and the priest will examine him on the seventh day a second time and if the touch is dark - since it is not white and bright and therefore of the same color as the healthy color - the touch has not spread through the skin - as it was said a little above, that is, it is not different of the rest of the skin - and the priest will purify it (Leviticus 13, 4.5.6), that is, he will declare that he is free from the suspicion of leprosy; not because he had leprosy, which he no longer has, but because he has not existed, since in that bright and white color of the touch, of the stain that had appeared, when he hoped that the place had sunk more and the hair of that one The place had turned white, it did not happen that way, but the touch, which had previously been bright and white, became rather dark, similar to the rest of the color of the skin, not shiny. Therefore, it was not leprosy. What appeared is a sign, it is not leprosy. However, even though he is free from the suspicion of leprosy, he will “wash his clothes,” because in that sign there was also something that motivated them to wash their clothes. And it will be clean (Leviticus 13,6). — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 45 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Augustine of Hippo: Then he continues: But if the meaning were again spread on the skin after the priest had examined it to purify it - that is, if after examining the priest on the seventh day and seeing him healthy, to declare him pure, that meaning spread on the skin , the stain on the skin - and it was examined a second time by the priest - after another seven days -, and the priest examined him and verified that the meaning had spread on the skin - that is, he did not continue with that state of health in which I had seen him after the first seven days - and the priest will stain him: it is leprosy. In this case, as what had been healthy after the first seven days did not remain in his state, but was changed to evil first, it is declared as it is leprosy. It is no longer expected in this case, or that the place is more sunken or that the hair has turned white. Since leprosy is not striking or vicious, but only its change, the fact of moving from diseased to healthy color and returning from healthy color to diseased color is so striking that in this case we would not have to wait for what in the first case had been ordered to wait for the place of the skin that was more sunken and the whiteness of the hair. For the mere fact of the change there would be no doubt that it would be leprosy. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 46 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 13:9

Augustine of Hippo: Then he continues: If a man had a leprosy, he will come to the priest, and the priest will examine him, and if there was a white scar on the skin, and this changed the hair making it white and from the healthyness of the living flesh there would be changed in the scar. If we remove the “and” (from the last sentence) of the previous text, put there according to the way of expressing oneself in the Scriptures, we have the following meaning: The priest will examine it, and if there is a white scar on the skin and this changed the hair making it white from the healthiness of the living flesh in the scar. The order is: He changed the white hair in the scar from the health of the living flesh, that is, as the living and healthy flesh has dark and black hair, so this scar has white. And it continues: A rooted leprosy is in the skin of its color; and the priest shall stain him-he shall pronounce him stained-he will not separate him, since he is unclean. The text seems to mean that when hair is changed in white with the same color as white hair due to skin disease, it is no longer necessary to separate the patient to examine him, nor do we have to wait until the place of the skin is more sunken. Due to the fact that the skin is white, of a different color than the rest and that it has white hair, of a different color than the rest of the living and healthy flesh, it is declared that there is a rooted leprosy. It is rooted leprosy, because you no longer have to examine it during those fourteen days. And it continues: But if the healthy color were restored and it became white. This is said because it had been said that all the white color spread all over the skin was already pure for this same reason, since there would have been no change there. And he continues: But at any time when he sees a bright color in him, he will be stained (Leviticus 13,11). Here it is clear that the change is disapproved. And therefore, in relation to what has just been said: But if the healthy color were restored and turned white, and it will come to the priest, and the priest will examine it and if the touch has turned white, and the priest will purify the affected: it is pure (Leviticus 13,16.4), we should not believe that the healthy color was restored so that healthy color would result; because it was already the color by which it became impure because of the change. Thus, he says that his healthy color was restored so that it was what it had been, that is, white color, once the healthy color was lost. In this case it will be pure again, having been all white, because there will be no change there. But to understand “restored” as “lost” is something unusual. It seems that it should rather have said: But if the white color had been restored. Now, on the other hand, he says: if the healthy color had been restored and he had turned white, as if he wanted to say: if the healthy color had been restored by turning white. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 47 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 13:13

Tertullian: Thus he wished us to understand that the man who is changed from his former carnal state to the whiteness of faith (which the world considers a blemish and a stain) and who is completely renewed is clean. He is no longer spotted, no longer mottled with both the old and the new. — ON PURITY 20.7

Leviticus 13:30

Augustine of Hippo: When talking about leprosy of the head, why is it also called blow, when it depends only on the color of the skin or the hair and if its appearance appears more sunken than the rest of the skin it is painless and without any discomfort ? Did you want to call a blow instead of a wound to this which is impure, as if man were struck by this impurity? — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 48 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 13:47

Augustine of Hippo: When speaking of the leprosy of clothing and other things pertaining to human uses, what do these words of Scripture mean: Either in a woolen dress or in a gown of bast or in the worsted or in the wool or in the things of linen or things of wool, when I had said before: in a woolen dress or in a gown of bast? Because a thing of tow is also linen. Or did the author want to talk about clothes and here about anything else wool or linen? The covers of the juices are not dressed, although they are made of wool; Neither the nets are clothed, though they are made of linen. Therefore, he first spoke in a concrete way about the dresses, and then in a general way about all things of wool and linen. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 49 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 13:48

Augustine of Hippo: We ask why Scripture says: In all skin of work. Other authors translate: In all made-up leather. But the Greek text does not say: ergasméno dérmati, but: ergasimo, a word that also appears in the Book of Kings, where Jonathan says to David: Be in the field on a workday (1R 20,19.), on a day when you make a work. And for that reason also here we must think that the skin of work is that in which a work is done, accommodated to some work. Well, there are skins that only serve for adornment, not for work. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 50 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 13:49

Augustine of Hippo: What does it mean: in any object of skin work, but what is made of skin, any object of skin? The author calls here object to what the Greeks call skeuos. And this is a general term to indicate any utensil. Different thing is what is called aggeion, because in Latin also this word is translated by object. But aggeion Corresponds rather to an object that contains something liquid. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 51 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 13:57

Pacian of Barcelona: Sometimes we know we have done something poorly and avoid including it in our work. But the guilt of it insinuates itself into other acts of ours. For there are some who are subject to carnal uncleanness but reflect on it and return to themselves; they acknowledge the guilt of their depravity. But when they have recovered from their unclean act, they immediately boast of the good of their chastity and swell up with foolish pride. First an unclean act held sway over their bodies; then unclean pride reigns in their minds. What takes hold of them spiritually is like roaming leprosy. It does not wholly leave the garment but changes its place on it. The garment is each of the faithful in the holy church. A roaming and wandering leprosy lays hold of a garment when, by an unreformed fault, guilt takes hold of that soul that seems to be faithful. Let’s suppose someone boasts when he possesses riches in this world but then hears from the mouth of a preacher that all these material things are going to perish; he then distributes what he has to the poor. But when he does so, pride swells up in his heart. First he took pride in his possessions; then he took pride in his generosity! This is analogous to the leprosy changing its place on the garment. Another man is given to immoderate and undisciplined expressions of pleasure. Perhaps he is admonished by a preacher. He practices gravity and selfcontrol and tries to restrain himself so that he does not indulge in dissolute pleasure. Often, though, he restrains himself from pleasure, immoderately—more than he should. His soul turns to anger. His sadness gives rise to motives for wrath and disturbs his mind, constricted as it is with the barb of rage. And so the vice of immoderate pleasure passed through immoderate restraint into the vice of anger. It is like a roaming and wandering leprosy which left the place it had and occupied a place it had not had. Exposition of the Old and New Testament, Leviticus

Paterius: Sometimes we know we have done something poorly and avoid including it in our work. But the guilt of it insinuates itself into other acts of ours. For there are some who are subject to carnal uncleanness but reflect on it and return to themselves; they acknowledge the guilt of their depravity. But when they have recovered from their unclean act, they immediately boast of the good of their chastity and swell up with foolish pride. First an unclean act held sway over their bodies; then unclean pride reigns in their minds. What takes hold of them spiritually is like roaming leprosy. It does not wholly leave the garment but changes its place on it. The garment is each of the faithful in the holy church. A roaming and wandering leprosy lays hold of a garment when, by an unreformed fault, guilt takes hold of that soul that seems to be faithful. Let’s suppose someone boasts when he possesses riches in this world but then hears from the mouth of a preacher that all these material things are going to perish; he then distributes what he has to the poor. But when he does so, pride swells up in his heart. First he took pride in his possessions; then he took pride in his generosity! This is analogous to the leprosy changing its place on the garment. Another man is given to immoderate and undisciplined expressions of pleasure. Perhaps he is admonished by a preacher. He practices gravity and self-control and tries to restrain himself so that he does not indulge in dissolute pleasure. Often, though, he restrains himself from pleasure, immoderately—more than he should. His soul turns to anger. His sadness gives rise to motives for wrath and disturbs his mind, constricted as it is with the barb of rage. And so the vice of immoderate pleasure passed through immoderate restraint into the vice of anger. It is like a roaming and wandering leprosy which left the place it had and occupied a place it had not had. — EXPOSITION OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT, Leviticus 11