1. dead person. The Hebrew nefesh, “person,” is an abundantly attested ellipsis for nefesh met, “dead person,” and the full phrase in fact is used in verse 11.

defiled. It is possible, as many scholars have proposed, that the notion of corpses as a source of defilement is linked with a polemic against the cult of the dead evidently widespread in Canaan among both Canaanites and Israelites. But given the repeated affirmation through ritual in Leviticus of life against death, it is quite possible that dead bodies were thought of as intrinsically contaminating, even without reference to a cult of the dead.

3. as she has not become a man’s. Once she is in the jurisdiction of her husband, it is his obligation in the case of her decease to see to her burial.

4. He shall not be defiled among his kin. The two Hebrew words baʿal beʿamaw are a well-known crux. Literally, they mean “a master/husband among his kin.” The various attempts to make this intelligible are strained, and it has been pointed out by several scholars that elsewhere baʿal is always used either as part of a collocation (Hebrew smikhut) or in a declined form. This translation adopts Meir Paran’s plausible proposal that the received text reflects a dittography, the initial bet and ayin of beʿamaw inadvertently repeated by a scribe and then a lamed added in order to turn the two letters into a known word.

5. baldness . . . the edge of their beard . . . shave . . . gash. All these acts are pagan rites of mourning that must be avoided. There are other pagan gestures of mourning (as attested, for example, in Ugaritic texts) that are permitted to the Israelites, such as putting ashes on the head and donning sackcloth. Presumably, the acts stipulated here are prohibited because they entail disfiguring some part of the body.

6. God’s bread. As elsewhere, leḥem is a synecdoche for “food.”

7. A woman degraded as a whore. This translation follows the proposal of many modern scholars that zonah waḥalalah (literally, “whore and degraded one”) is a hendiadys used to convey the idea of the intrinsically degraded condition of the whore. Milgrom’s proposal that ḥalalah means “raped woman” rests on rather flimsy philological evidence. Note that in verse 9 these same two roots are put together, this time as a verb and an infinitive, taḥel liznot, “degrade herself in whoring,” strongly suggesting that they are a fixed collocation rather than designating two different possibilities.

for he is holy. The Hebrew, like this translation, slips from the plural for all priests to the singular for the individual priest.

8. holy . . . hallows . . . holy. The verbal motif central to the Holiness Code is here redoubled as the text concentrates on the priests, the very heart of the holiness that is to extend to the entire people.

10. exalted over his brothers. More literally, “greater than his brothers.”

the garments. Though the Hebrew uses a general term for garments, the obvious reference is the priestly vestments worn in the cult.

dishevel his hair nor rip his garments. Gestures of mourning permitted to those who are not the high priest. The verb chosen for “rip,” param, neatly alliterates with paraʿ, “dishevel.”

11. he shall not come in. The contamination of the corpse would be conveyed to him if he were to enter any enclosed space in which the corpse was laid out.

for his father or for his mother he shall not be defiled. The syntactic positioning of the two nouns at the beginning of the clause suggests: not even for his father or for his mother.

12. mark. The Hebrew nezer can also mean “diadem,” but its etymology indicates “to be distinct, set apart,” and the anointing oil is the priestly mark of distinction.

14. virgin. On the basis of both the immediate context and usages elsewhere, one must categorically reject Milgrom’s claim that betulah simply means “young woman” and does not imply virginity. The priest has to marry a virgin to ensure the purity of the priestly line.

18. no man in whom there is a defect. The underlying notion, however objectionable to modern sensibilities, is one shared by many ancient religions: just as the animal offered in sacrifice must be unblemished, the officiant offering the sacrifice must be without physical blemish.

disfigured nor malformed. The two Hebrew terms, ḥarum and saruʿa, have long been the objects of philological speculation. Their exact meaning remains in doubt, though it is clear that they refer to some sort of physical deformity.

19. a broken leg or a broken arm. As Baruch Levine notes, given the limitations of ancient medicine, broken bones would usually have resulted in a permanent deformity.

22. he may eat his God’s bread. The physical deformity does not disqualify the man from his priestly perquisite of a share in the sacrifices. Otherwise, he would have no source of sustenance. But he is not permitted (verse 23) to approach the altar (“come in”) to offer the sacrifice.

24. And Moses spoke. For editorial reasons that remain obscure to us, this chapter concludes atypically, with a report of Moses speaking that is not followed by a speech and thus appears to refer retrospectively to the speech just delivered.