Leviticus — Disparate Study

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The prescribed blood location is the altar’s side in Hebrew, its base in Greek. This is a material ritual difference; Greek also says “place” where Hebrew says “burn.” In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… on the altar. Its blood shall be …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… on the altar. He shall drain out the blood at the …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 1:15:3 explains: ונמצה דמו AND THE BLOOD THEREOF SHALL BE WRUNG OUT — The word ונמצה is connected in meaning with (Proverbs 30:33) “the pressing out (מיץ) of wrath”; (Isaiah 16:4) “for extortion (המץ) is at an end). — He presses the place where the neck has been cut (בית השחיטה) against the wall and the blood thus drains itself out) and runs down the wall (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 7; Zevachim 64b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sacrificial service. Hebrews 5:1–3 describes priests offering gifts and sacrifices while themselves subject to weakness. St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–41 invokes ordered offerings and assigned priestly service when addressing church order. These are broader receptions of the ritual system, not explanations of every anatomical or procedural variant here.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The shared ritual framework should be distinguished from its precise instructions. Rabbinic explanation develops the Hebrew practice, while Christian reflection relates purification and offering to approach before God. The location or purity terminology remains consequential even when both traditions discuss holiness.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may clarify the ritual category or location as it understands the larger procedure. Such clarification can alter what the individual verse expressly requires. A differing source formulation remains possible; coherence with a ritual system does not establish which wording preceded the other.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The selected Hebrew prescribes the whole fat tail; Greek names the loin and lower-back muscles. These materially different anatomical instructions must remain visible. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… fat covering the entrails, and all the fat on the entrails,”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… fat of the belly,”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 3:9:1 explains: חלבו means: the choicest part in it; and what is this? The whole fat-tail. This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sacrificial service. Hebrews 5:1–3 describes priests offering gifts and sacrifices while themselves subject to weakness. St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–41 invokes ordered offerings and assigned priestly service when addressing church order. These are broader receptions of the ritual system, not explanations of every anatomical or procedural variant here.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The portions belong to a structured distribution among altar, priests, and participants. Rabbinic comments identify those portions and their use; Christian priestly interpretation addresses a broader sacrificial pattern. Neither theological comparison removes the different anatomical instructions or, where present, the distinct presentation gesture.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Animal anatomy and sacrificial terminology do not always divide into matching categories across languages. Greek may substitute a familiar but different anatomical designation or interpret a ritual portion through established usage. The recurring correspondences suggest a pattern; they do not prove that the named body parts are physically identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew speaks of the people’s resulting guilt; Greek expressly describes their sinning. Greek also calls the priest high priest. The causal portrayal is substantively different. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… YHWH an unblemished young bull as a sin offering for …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… Lord an unblemished calf from the cattle for his sin, for the …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 4:3:1 explains: אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם IF THE PRIEST THAT IS ANOINTED DO SIN לאשמת העם — The Halachic explanation is that he is liable to bring a sin-offering only when there was ignorance of the real matter (of the law in question; i. e. after having considered the case in question he came to a wrong decision) together with a mistaken action (i. e. where he erred in a Halachic decision and as a result of this error acted against the true law), just as it is stated with reference to the guilt of the whole people): (v. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sacrificial service. Hebrews 5:1–3 describes priests offering gifts and sacrifices while themselves subject to weakness. St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–41 invokes ordered offerings and assigned priestly service when addressing church order. These are broader receptions of the ritual system, not explanations of every anatomical or procedural variant here.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi's explanation links priestly failure with the community, while Hebrews discusses priests' responsibility and their own need for sacrifice. The shared concern is representative responsibility. The precise relation between a priest's offense and the people's sin or guilt remains differently worded in the columns.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may make the priest's effect on the people more explicit by presenting their sinning rather than their resulting guilt. Its high-priest designation also identifies the office by function. These are plausible interpretive clarifications, but they do not establish a complete doctrine of transferred guilt.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek changes the listed categories and lacks this verse’s concluding declaration of hidden impurity and guilt. Its sentence continues into 5:3; the location of the awareness condition differs materially. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… of unclean livestock, or the carcass of an unclean creeping thing, and it is hidden from him, he is unclean and incurs guilt.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… of unclean livestock,”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 5:2:2 explains: עלם ממנו‎ונ AND IT WAS HIDDEN FROM HIM — the uncleanness was hidden from him (escaped his notice, not the fact that the things he ate were holy or that the place he entered was the Sanctuary. The translation therefore is “and it — the fact that he was unclean — escaped his notice, but he actually was unclean”) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 7; cf. Shevuot 14b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sacrificial service. Hebrews 5:1–3 describes priests offering gifts and sacrifices while themselves subject to weakness. St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–41 invokes ordered offerings and assigned priestly service when addressing church order. These are broader receptions of the ritual system, not explanations of every anatomical or procedural variant here.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The distinction between contact, awareness, and guilt is essential to interpreting this legislation. Rabbinic exposition clarifies those stages, while Christian discussion of conscience offers a related theme. The Greek must be read into the next verse before conclusions are drawn about responsibility or forgiveness.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may distribute the awareness condition across a longer sentence rather than repeat it at the same verse boundary. Its animal categories also require lexical comparison. A missing clause at this location is therefore not automatically a missing principle from the surrounding law.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew frames the act as breach of trust; Greek as forgetfulness. Both retain inadvertence, but the characterization of responsibility differs substantially. Greek lacks “your assessment.” In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… sanctuary shekel, for a guilt offering.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… sanctuary shekel, for the offense he has committed.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 5:15:1 explains: כי תמעל מעל — The term מעל everywhere in Scripture denotes “changing”. Similarly it stales, (I Chronicles 5:25) “And they committed a מעל against the God of their fathers; for they went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land” (i. e. they exchanged Him for their gods). And similarly it states of the faithless wife, (Numbers 5:12) “[If any man’s wife go aside] and commit a מעל in respect to him” (i. e. she changes her relationship to him for one to another man) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 1; Meilah 18a).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sacrificial service. Hebrews 5:1–3 describes priests offering gifts and sacrifices while themselves subject to weakness. St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–41 invokes ordered offerings and assigned priestly service when addressing church order. These are broader receptions of the ritual system, not explanations of every anatomical or procedural variant here.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Both versions concern an inadvertent offense against sacred things, but breach of trust and forgetfulness characterize it differently. Rabbinic legal analysis and Christian teaching about responsible worship illuminate the stakes. Neither should turn the Greek wording into a declaration that every such act is harmless.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret inadvertent breach of trust through forgetfulness, making one possible form of responsibility explicit. Different lexical understanding can explain the contrast without assuming deliberate relaxation of the law. The omitted assessment phrase remains a separate formal difference in how the offering is specified.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew’s breach of trust against YHWH becomes disregard of His commandments; the entrusted property is a partnership in Greek. These change the legal description of the offense. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… anyone sins and acts unfaithfully against YHWH by deceiving his neighbor about …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… anyone sins and deliberately disregards the Lord’s commandments, and lies to his neighbor about …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 5:21:1 explains: ונפש כי תחטא IF A SOUL SIN [AND COMMIT FAITHLESSNESS AGAINST THE LORD] — R. Akiba said, What is the force of ‎‎‎מעל בה׳‎‎ ומעלה here, where it does not speak of betraying “holy things of the Lord” as in v. 15, but of betraying one’s neighbour? Because whoever lends or borrows money or does business with another, does it as a rule only in the presence of witnesses or by a document, therefore when he repudiates the matter, he repudiates the witnesses or the document; but he who deposits something with his neighbour does not wish any living soul to know about it except the Third Being (God) who is between them; […]

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical ethical comparison. Luke 19:8–10 places restitution within Zacchaeus’ response to Jesus, and Ephesians 4:28 joins honest work with generosity. These provide Christian connections to property wrongs and repair. They are not direct interpretations of the Hebrew deposit or Greek partnership category and should not replace the ancient law’s terms.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The law treats wrong against a neighbor as a religious matter as well as an economic one. Rabbinic interpretation identifies the entrusted property and false dealing; Christian restitution teaching supplies a comparison. The partnership and deposit categories must still be distinguished in applying the wording.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may unpack covenantal breach through disregard of commandments and interpret the property arrangement through partnership. These are concrete legal construals rather than mere stylistic substitutions. A distinct source is possible, but the comparison alone cannot reconstruct an alternative commercial institution or legal code.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The deadline is the day of his asham, here read as the guilt offering, versus the day he is exposed or convicted in Greek. Hebrew can also be read as the day guilt is acknowledged; that alternative narrows the contrast.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 5:24:3 explains: לאשר הוא לו [AND HE SHALL ADD THE FIFTH PART MORE THERETO AND GIVE IT] UNTO HIM TO WHOM IT APPERTAINETH — i. e. to him whose is the money (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 13 12; Bava Kamma 108; also Bava Kamma 103a).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical ethical comparison. Luke 19:8–10 places restitution within Zacchaeus’ response to Jesus, and Ephesians 4:28 joins honest work with generosity. These provide Christian connections to property wrongs and repair. They are not direct interpretations of the Hebrew deposit or Greek partnership category and should not replace the ancient law’s terms.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Restitution must be related to recognition of wrongdoing, but the precise moment differs. Rabbinic interpretation of liability and Christian examples of restitution help frame the ethical issue. They do not eliminate the need to decide how the Hebrew guilt term functions in this particular sentence.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The Hebrew guilt expression can refer to guilt, acknowledgment, or the associated offering. Greek appears to select a public recognition or conviction point. Semantic ambiguity is a plausible explanation for the deadline difference, which is narrower under some Hebrew interpretations than the printed columns initially suggest.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek specifies the altar’s base for the blood; Hebrew specifies the altar without “base” and uses dash. Greek also includes “before the Lord.” In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… shall slaughter the guilt offering, and he …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… shall slaughter the ram of the offense offering before the …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 7:2:1 explains: שחטו THEY SHALL SLAUGHTER — By using the plural ישחטו Scripture speaks of “several slaughterers” in connection with the עולה ‎‎‎‎(ישחטו את עולה)‎ ” in order to include also the communal burnt-offering under the law that an עולה must be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. — Since we do not find a guilt-offering in the case of the whole community, the term ישחטו in the plural is used here (ישחטו את האשם) because Scripture brings it in connection with the עולה (i. e. since the plural is used of the עולה it balances it by the same expression in the next phrase) (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 5 3).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sacrificial service. Hebrews 5:1–3 describes priests offering gifts and sacrifices while themselves subject to weakness. St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–41 invokes ordered offerings and assigned priestly service when addressing church order. These are broader receptions of the ritual system, not explanations of every anatomical or procedural variant here.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The shared ritual framework should be distinguished from its precise instructions. Rabbinic explanation develops the Hebrew practice, while Christian reflection relates purification and offering to approach before God. The location or purity terminology remains consequential even when both traditions discuss holiness.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may clarify the ritual category or location as it understands the larger procedure. Such clarification can alter what the individual verse expressly requires. A differing source formulation remains possible; coherence with a ritual system does not establish which wording preceded the other.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Fat tail / loin changes the prescribed part; Greek also includes fat on the inner parts. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… fat covering the entrails,”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… fat covering the inner parts, and all the fat on the inner parts,”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 7:3:2 explains: את האליה THE FAT TAIL — Because only a ram or a lamb can be offered as a guilt-offering and the altar’s share in the case of a ram and lamb has been augmented by the fat tail (cf. Leviticus 3:9), therefore it is here naturally mentioned as having to be burnt.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sacrificial service. Hebrews 5:1–3 describes priests offering gifts and sacrifices while themselves subject to weakness. St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–41 invokes ordered offerings and assigned priestly service when addressing church order. These are broader receptions of the ritual system, not explanations of every anatomical or procedural variant here.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The portions belong to a structured distribution among altar, priests, and participants. Rabbinic comments identify those portions and their use; Christian priestly interpretation addresses a broader sacrificial pattern. Neither theological comparison removes the different anatomical instructions or, where present, the distinct presentation gesture.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Animal anatomy and sacrificial terminology do not always divide into matching categories across languages. Greek may substitute a familiar but different anatomical designation or interpret a ritual portion through established usage. The recurring correspondences suggest a pattern; they do not prove that the named body parts are physically identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek includes the liver lobe and describes placing a gift; Hebrew specifies waving the breast. Both the portions named and the commanded gesture differ materially. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… bring YHWH’s offerings by fire. He shall bring …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… present the offerings to the Lord: the fat on the breast and the lobe of the liver. He shall present …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 7:30:3 explains: ‎החזה יביאנו‎ ‎‏ את החלב על‏THE FAT UPON THE BREAST SHALL HE BRING — When he (the first priest; see below) brings it from the slaughtering-place he places the fat upon the breast, and when he afterwards transfers it into the hand of the priest who is to do the waving it follows that the breast is on top and the fat beneath; — that is what Scripture states in another passage, (Leviticus 10:15) “The heave shoulder and the wave breasts shall they bring upon (על) the fire-offerings of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering etc.” (i. e. during the waving the חזה ושוק shall be on top). […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sacrificial service. Hebrews 5:1–3 describes priests offering gifts and sacrifices while themselves subject to weakness. St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–41 invokes ordered offerings and assigned priestly service when addressing church order. These are broader receptions of the ritual system, not explanations of every anatomical or procedural variant here.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic explanations of waving describe an enacted rite, while the Greek stresses offering or separation. Christian priestly comparisons concern dedication and mediation more broadly. The relationship is informative precisely because ritual movement and sacred status are related but different aspects of the act.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may express the offering's consecrated status or presentation rather than reproduce a Hebrew motion verb. Established ritual vocabulary can explain the recurring pattern. The additional portions also need independent attention; a translation convention concerning gestures does not account for every inventory change.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The priest’s right-hand portion is named with Hebrew שׁוֹק (shoq, “leg portion”) and Greek βραχίονα (brachiona, “arm or foreleg”). Both columns assign a designated portion of the well-being offering to the priest; the anatomical designation differs. English “thigh,” “leg,” and “shoulder” can obscure that distinction, so the ancient terms are supplied without assuming that they designate precisely the same cut. Original-language check: Hebrew BHS 7:32 · Greek Rahlfs–Hanhart 7:32.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 7:32:1 explains: שוק is that limb of the right rear-leg extending from the knee-joint, the bone and blesh of which are usually sold as offal together with the head, unto the middle joint which is what is known as the סובך of the leg (the סובד is the small bone between that middle joint and the thigh-bone; consequently the שוק spoken of in connection with שלמים is the middle one of the three limbs that form an animal’s leg) (Chullin 134b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sacrificial service. Hebrews 5:1–3 describes priests offering gifts and sacrifices while themselves subject to weakness. St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–41 invokes ordered offerings and assigned priestly service when addressing church order. These are broader receptions of the ritual system, not explanations of every anatomical or procedural variant here.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The portions belong to a structured distribution among altar, priests, and participants. Rabbinic comments identify those portions and their use; Christian priestly interpretation addresses a broader sacrificial pattern. Neither theological comparison removes the different anatomical instructions or, where present, the distinct presentation gesture.

Likely Cause for Difference Translation-based hypothesis. Animal anatomy and sacrificial terminology do not always divide into matching categories across languages. Greek may substitute a familiar but different anatomical designation or interpret a ritual portion through established usage. The recurring correspondences suggest a pattern; they do not prove that the named body parts are physically identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The thigh / foreleg difference recurs in the allocation to the officiating priest. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… blood of the well-being offerings and the fat …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… blood of the deliverance offering and the fat …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 7:32:1 explains: שוק is that limb of the right rear-leg extending from the knee-joint, the bone and blesh of which are usually sold as offal together with the head, unto the middle joint which is what is known as the סובך of the leg (the סובד is the small bone between that middle joint and the thigh-bone; consequently the שוק spoken of in connection with שלמים is the middle one of the three limbs that form an animal’s leg) (Chullin 134b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sacrificial service. Hebrews 5:1–3 describes priests offering gifts and sacrifices while themselves subject to weakness. St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–41 invokes ordered offerings and assigned priestly service when addressing church order. These are broader receptions of the ritual system, not explanations of every anatomical or procedural variant here.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The portions belong to a structured distribution among altar, priests, and participants. Rabbinic comments identify those portions and their use; Christian priestly interpretation addresses a broader sacrificial pattern. Neither theological comparison removes the different anatomical instructions or, where present, the distinct presentation gesture.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Animal anatomy and sacrificial terminology do not always divide into matching categories across languages. Greek may substitute a familiar but different anatomical designation or interpret a ritual portion through established usage. The recurring correspondences suggest a pattern; they do not prove that the named body parts are physically identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The different portion and gesture terms recur; their sacrifices / your sacrifices also differs. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… thigh of the contribution from the sons …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… foreleg of the portion set apart from the sons …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 7:34:1 explains: תנופה … .תרומה WAVE [BREAD AND] HEAVE [SHOULDER] — This implies that he (the priest) moved them to and fro in a horizontally direction (תנופה) and moves them up and down (תרומה) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 16 3; cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:27 and Note thereon).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sacrificial service. Hebrews 5:1–3 describes priests offering gifts and sacrifices while themselves subject to weakness. St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–41 invokes ordered offerings and assigned priestly service when addressing church order. These are broader receptions of the ritual system, not explanations of every anatomical or procedural variant here.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The portions belong to a structured distribution among altar, priests, and participants. Rabbinic comments identify those portions and their use; Christian priestly interpretation addresses a broader sacrificial pattern. Neither theological comparison removes the different anatomical instructions or, where present, the distinct presentation gesture.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Animal anatomy and sacrificial terminology do not always divide into matching categories across languages. Greek may substitute a familiar but different anatomical designation or interpret a ritual portion through established usage. The recurring correspondences suggest a pattern; they do not prove that the named body parts are physically identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Fat tail / loin and thigh / foreleg name materially different ritual portions. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… the fat, the fat tail, all the fat on …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… the fat, the loin, the fat on …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 7:32:1 explains: שוק is that limb of the right rear-leg extending from the knee-joint, the bone and blesh of which are usually sold as offal together with the head, unto the middle joint which is what is known as the סובך of the leg (the סובד is the small bone between that middle joint and the thigh-bone; consequently the שוק spoken of in connection with שלמים is the middle one of the three limbs that form an animal’s leg) (Chullin 134b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priestly calling. Hebrews 5:4 names Aaron as an example of being called by God, while St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–43 uses ordered ministry and Aaron’s selection to address rivalry. These connections concern vocation and reverence, leaving the distinct consecration gestures, participants, and emotional descriptions in Leviticus intact.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The portions belong to a structured distribution among altar, priests, and participants. Rabbinic comments identify those portions and their use; Christian priestly interpretation addresses a broader sacrificial pattern. Neither theological comparison removes the different anatomical instructions or, where present, the distinct presentation gesture.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Animal anatomy and sacrificial terminology do not always divide into matching categories across languages. Greek may substitute a familiar but different anatomical designation or interpret a ritual portion through established usage. The recurring correspondences suggest a pattern; they do not prove that the named body parts are physically identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The thigh / foreleg difference continues; Greek names the basket by consecration rather than its unleavened contents. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… unleavened cake, one cake of bread with oil, and …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… unleavened loaf, one loaf with oil, and …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 7:32:1 explains: שוק is that limb of the right rear-leg extending from the knee-joint, the bone and blesh of which are usually sold as offal together with the head, unto the middle joint which is what is known as the סובך of the leg (the סובד is the small bone between that middle joint and the thigh-bone; consequently the שוק spoken of in connection with שלמים is the middle one of the three limbs that form an animal’s leg) (Chullin 134b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priestly calling. Hebrews 5:4 names Aaron as an example of being called by God, while St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–43 uses ordered ministry and Aaron’s selection to address rivalry. These connections concern vocation and reverence, leaving the distinct consecration gestures, participants, and emotional descriptions in Leviticus intact.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The portions belong to a structured distribution among altar, priests, and participants. Rabbinic comments identify those portions and their use; Christian priestly interpretation addresses a broader sacrificial pattern. Neither theological comparison removes the different anatomical instructions or, where present, the distinct presentation gesture.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Animal anatomy and sacrificial terminology do not always divide into matching categories across languages. Greek may substitute a familiar but different anatomical designation or interpret a ritual portion through established usage. The recurring correspondences suggest a pattern; they do not prove that the named body parts are physically identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew explicitly narrates waving; Greek narrates offering up a separated portion. The enacted gesture is not harmonized. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… them as a wave offering before YHWH.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… up as a portion set apart before the Lord.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 7:34:1 explains: תנופה … .תרומה WAVE [BREAD AND] HEAVE [SHOULDER] — This implies that he (the priest) moved them to and fro in a horizontally direction (תנופה) and moves them up and down (תרומה) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 16 3; cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:27 and Note thereon).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priestly calling. Hebrews 5:4 names Aaron as an example of being called by God, while St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–43 uses ordered ministry and Aaron’s selection to address rivalry. These connections concern vocation and reverence, leaving the distinct consecration gestures, participants, and emotional descriptions in Leviticus intact.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic explanations of waving describe an enacted rite, while the Greek stresses offering or separation. Christian priestly comparisons concern dedication and mediation more broadly. The relationship is informative precisely because ritual movement and sacred status are related but different aspects of the act.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may express the offering's consecrated status or presentation rather than reproduce a Hebrew motion verb. Established ritual vocabulary can explain the recurring pattern. The additional portions also need independent attention; a translation convention concerning gestures does not account for every inventory change.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The addressees are the sons of Israel / council of elders. Hebrew’s plural age expression applies to calf and lamb; Greek’s singular “year-old” explicitly qualifies the lamb. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… Take a male goat for a sin …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… Take one male kid from the goats for sin, and …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 9:7:4 explains: קרבן העם THE OFFERING OF THE PEOPLE — the kid of the goats and the calf and the lamb (v. 3). Wherever the term עגל, “calf” is mentioned without further definition it denotes one in its first year, and it is from this passage that you may derive this rule (cf. Sifra on 4:2; Rosh Hashanah 10a).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priestly calling. Hebrews 5:4 names Aaron as an example of being called by God, while St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–43 uses ordered ministry and Aaron’s selection to address rivalry. These connections concern vocation and reverence, leaving the distinct consecration gestures, participants, and emotional descriptions in Leviticus intact.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The beginning of public priestly service involves the community in both readings. Rabbinic exposition and Christian accounts of ordered ministry illuminate communal participation. The elders/Israel distinction and the scope of the age adjective should nevertheless be preserved as separate textual observations.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may address the assembly through its representative elders and attach the age qualification to the immediately preceding animal. Those are plausible contextual and grammatical interpretations. A differing source remains possible, and representation does not make the explicitly named audience identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The first rite concerns yourself and the people / yourself and your household. This changes its stated beneficiaries. Greek also names Moses in the closing command formula. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… for yourself and for the people. Prepare the people’s …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… for yourself and your household. Prepare the people’s …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 9:7:4 explains: קרבן העם THE OFFERING OF THE PEOPLE — the kid of the goats and the calf and the lamb (v. 3). Wherever the term עגל, “calf” is mentioned without further definition it denotes one in its first year, and it is from this passage that you may derive this rule (cf. Sifra on 4:2; Rosh Hashanah 10a).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priestly calling. Hebrews 5:4 names Aaron as an example of being called by God, while St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–43 uses ordered ministry and Aaron’s selection to address rivalry. These connections concern vocation and reverence, leaving the distinct consecration gestures, participants, and emotional descriptions in Leviticus intact.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The recipients of atonement matter to the rite's structure. Rabbinic interpretation specifies the priest's obligations, while Hebrews distinguishes a priest's offering for himself from his work for others. These connections clarify the issue without making household and people interchangeable nouns.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may coordinate this atonement statement with other passages that distinguish the priest's household from the wider people. Such ritual alignment could explain the explicit household language. A fuller source is another possibility; the addition should not be treated as proof that Hebrew excludes every household member.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Fat tail / loin again changes the portion; Greek explicitly includes the fat on the kidneys. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… kidneys, and the appendage of the liver—”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… kidneys and the fat on them, and the lobe on the liver—”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 9:19:1 explains: והמכסה AND THAT WHICH COVERETH — This is elsewhere (e.g., Leviticus 3:3) termed “the fat which covereth the inward parts”. This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priestly calling. Hebrews 5:4 names Aaron as an example of being called by God, while St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–43 uses ordered ministry and Aaron’s selection to address rivalry. These connections concern vocation and reverence, leaving the distinct consecration gestures, participants, and emotional descriptions in Leviticus intact.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The portions belong to a structured distribution among altar, priests, and participants. Rabbinic comments identify those portions and their use; Christian priestly interpretation addresses a broader sacrificial pattern. Neither theological comparison removes the different anatomical instructions or, where present, the distinct presentation gesture.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Animal anatomy and sacrificial terminology do not always divide into matching categories across languages. Greek may substitute a familiar but different anatomical designation or interpret a ritual portion through established usage. The recurring correspondences suggest a pattern; they do not prove that the named body parts are physically identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The portion and gesture differ; Hebrew attributes the immediate command to Moses, Greek to the Lord addressing Moses. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… thigh as a wave offering before YHWH, as …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… foreleg as a portion set apart before the Lord, …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 9:20:1 explains: וישימו את החלבים על החזות AND THEY PUT THE FAT UPON THE BREAST — After the waving the priest who waved them gave them to another priest to burn them; consequently what was previously above was now beneath (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 7:30; Menachot 62a).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priestly calling. Hebrews 5:4 names Aaron as an example of being called by God, while St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–43 uses ordered ministry and Aaron’s selection to address rivalry. These connections concern vocation and reverence, leaving the distinct consecration gestures, participants, and emotional descriptions in Leviticus intact.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The portions belong to a structured distribution among altar, priests, and participants. Rabbinic comments identify those portions and their use; Christian priestly interpretation addresses a broader sacrificial pattern. Neither theological comparison removes the different anatomical instructions or, where present, the distinct presentation gesture.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Animal anatomy and sacrificial terminology do not always divide into matching categories across languages. Greek may substitute a familiar but different anatomical designation or interpret a ritual portion through established usage. The recurring correspondences suggest a pattern; they do not prove that the named body parts are physically identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew portrays Aaron’s silence; Greek katenychthe portrays his being pierced or stricken inwardly. The emotional portrayal differs substantially, although silence and grief can coexist. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… This is what YHWH said: Among those …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… This is what the Lord said: Among those …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 10:3:2 explains: ‎וידם אהרן AND AARON WAS SILENT — He received a reward for his silence. And what was the reward he received? That the subsequent Divine address was made to him alone and not to Moses also — for to him alone was spoken the section (vv. 9—11) dealing with those who are intoxicated by wine (see v. 8) (Zevachim 115b; Leviticus Rabbah 12 2).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priestly calling. Hebrews 5:4 names Aaron as an example of being called by God, while St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–43 uses ordered ministry and Aaron’s selection to address rivalry. These connections concern vocation and reverence, leaving the distinct consecration gestures, participants, and emotional descriptions in Leviticus intact.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi attaches significance to Aaron's silence, while the Greek gives explicit language for inward affliction. Christian teaching on reverent service can engage either portrayal. A synthesis should allow silence and grief to coexist without presenting one as the translation of the other.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may express the inward effect of the calamity rather than the outward silence described by Hebrew. An emotional interpretation of a response verb is plausible. The two states can coexist, so this difference does not require competing events or an accusation that one account suppressed Aaron's grief.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek expressly extends the rule to approaching the altar. The expanded stated scope affects priestly practice and is therefore Disparate under the broader project definition. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… the Tent of Meeting, so that you …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… the Tent of Testimony or when you approach the altar, so that you …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 10:9:2 explains: ‎‏ בבאכם אל אהל מועד WHEN YE GO INTO THE APPOINTED TENT — I have in these words only a law that forbids this when ye go into the Sanctuary; whence can it be derived that it applies also whenever they approached the outer altar? But there is mention here of entering into the appointed tent and there is mention, in connection with the sanctification (the washing) of the hands and feet, of entering into the appointed tent (Exodus 30:20). […]

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic thematic comparison. 1 Timothy 3:2–3,8 associates eligibility for ministry with sober, disciplined conduct. It does not quote the Levitical wine prohibition or make the offices identical. The connection concerns responsibility in service, while the Greek’s explicit extension to approaching the altar remains a separate textual observation.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The rule links priestly service with disciplined discernment. Rabbinic interpretation examines its application, while Christian instructions for sober ministers provide a thematic comparison. The Greek's express altar clause should remain visible even where the two traditions reach overlapping practical expectations.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may make explicit the altar access already implied by priestly service in the sanctuary. This would be a functional expansion of the prohibition. A fuller source remains possible; the addition identifies expressed scope, not proof that Hebrew ritual law permits intoxicated altar service elsewhere.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Clean place / holy place changes the required location’s status; daughters / household changes the named participants, and thigh / foreleg changes the portion. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… thigh of the contribution in a clean …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… foreleg of the portion set apart in a holy …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 10:14:2 explains: תאכלו במקום טהור YE SHALL EAT IN A CLEAN PLACE —But had they eaten those that preceded this (the sin-offering and the meal-offering) in an unclean place? But he said this because the preceding ones being holy in the highest degree the eating of them had necessarily to take place in a holy spot (in the court of the Tabernacle), but these,however, were not required to be eaten “within the hangings” (i. e. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priestly calling. Hebrews 5:4 names Aaron as an example of being called by God, while St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–43 uses ordered ministry and Aaron’s selection to address rivalry. These connections concern vocation and reverence, leaving the distinct consecration gestures, participants, and emotional descriptions in Leviticus intact.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The portions belong to a structured distribution among altar, priests, and participants. Rabbinic comments identify those portions and their use; Christian priestly interpretation addresses a broader sacrificial pattern. Neither theological comparison removes the different anatomical instructions or, where present, the distinct presentation gesture.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Animal anatomy and sacrificial terminology do not always divide into matching categories across languages. Greek may substitute a familiar but different anatomical designation or interpret a ritual portion through established usage. The recurring correspondences suggest a pattern; they do not prove that the named body parts are physically identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The portion and gesture distinctions recur; Greek expressly adds daughters to this entitlement and Moses to the command formula. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… with you, as YHWH commanded.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… with you, as the Lord directed Moses.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 10:15:2 explains: על אשי החלבים WITH THE FIRE OFFERINGS OF THE FAT — From this we may learn that the fat-portions were beneath the others at the time of waving (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 11). And as for the exposition of the texts in such a manner that they shall not contradict each other I have already explained the three of them in the section צו את אהרן (Leviticus 7:30; see Rashi thereon).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priestly calling. Hebrews 5:4 names Aaron as an example of being called by God, while St Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 40–43 uses ordered ministry and Aaron’s selection to address rivalry. These connections concern vocation and reverence, leaving the distinct consecration gestures, participants, and emotional descriptions in Leviticus intact.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The portions belong to a structured distribution among altar, priests, and participants. Rabbinic comments identify those portions and their use; Christian priestly interpretation addresses a broader sacrificial pattern. Neither theological comparison removes the different anatomical instructions or, where present, the distinct presentation gesture.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Animal anatomy and sacrificial terminology do not always divide into matching categories across languages. Greek may substitute a familiar but different anatomical designation or interpret a ritual portion through established usage. The recurring correspondences suggest a pattern; they do not prove that the named body parts are physically identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English On the conventional identifications adopted here, the Greek names a waterbird and a swan where Hebrew names an owl and a scavenging bird, materially changing the stated list. The Hebrew species identifications remain provisional. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “the white owl, the pelican, and …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “the purple waterbird, the pelican, and …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 11:18:1 explains: תנשמת — This is the chauvesouris in O. F.: it is similar to a mouse which flies about at night (a “bat”). The תנשמת mentioned among the creeping things (v. 30) is somewhat like it but it has no eyes, and it is called “talpa”, (English = mole) (cf. Chullin 63a).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct reception of purity categories. Acts 10:9–16,28 places clean and unclean creatures in Peter’s vision and connects the episode with his reception of people previously kept apart. The narrative is a Christian use of purity language, not a zoological commentary. It should not be used to identify uncertain species or erase differences in washing requirements.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic commentary helps preserve traditional identifications, while Acts 10 supplies a later Christian discussion of clean and unclean creatures. That vision does not identify every ancient species here. Readers should distinguish the ritual categories from modern taxonomy and from the uncertain English animal names.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Ancient animal names are often uncertain and local, making translation into another fauna vocabulary difficult. Greek identifications may reflect a different classification or familiar substitute. Because the Hebrew identifications are themselves provisional, the displayed species contrasts should not be presented as exact modern zoological determinations.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew says the hoof is not fully split; Greek describes a divided hoof. Greek also explicitly limits the contact clause to carcasses and supplies its evening endpoint. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… but does not split it completely and does not bring up the cud is …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… but does not chew the cud shall …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 11:26:1 explains: מפרסת פרסה ושסע איננה שסעת WHICH DIVIDETH THE HOOF AND IS NOT CLOVEN FOOTED, such as the camel, the hoof of which is split on top but is attached below (see Rashi on v. 3); here it tells you that the carcass of an unclean animal causes uncleanness and in the paragraph which is at the end of this section (vv. 39–40) it sets forth the law concerning the carcass of a clean animal.

Christian teaching and understanding Direct reception of purity categories. Acts 10:9–16,28 places clean and unclean creatures in Peter’s vision and connects the episode with his reception of people previously kept apart. The narrative is a Christian use of purity language, not a zoological commentary. It should not be used to identify uncertain species or erase differences in washing requirements.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Both columns connect animal classification with contact impurity, while specifying the condition differently. Rabbinic legal explanation and Christian reception of food distinctions address the broader system. Neither removes the need to read the hoof description precisely before claiming agreement about this case.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The hoof description may reflect a different construal of the Hebrew condition or a different source formulation. Greek also explicates carcass contact and duration. The procedural additions are intelligible in context, but they do not settle the opposing appearance of the hoof criteria.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The selected conventional renderings produce a materially different list, including Greek shrew and mole. Several Hebrew names remain zoologically uncertain; the exact species contrast is provisional. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “the gecko, the monitor lizard, the lizard, …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “the shrew, the chameleon, the spotted lizard, the lizard, …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 11:30:4 explains: תנשמת — talpa in O. F.; English mole. This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Direct reception of purity categories. Acts 10:9–16,28 places clean and unclean creatures in Peter’s vision and connects the episode with his reception of people previously kept apart. The narrative is a Christian use of purity language, not a zoological commentary. It should not be used to identify uncertain species or erase differences in washing requirements.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic commentary helps preserve traditional identifications, while Acts 10 supplies a later Christian discussion of clean and unclean creatures. That vision does not identify every ancient species here. Readers should distinguish the ritual categories from modern taxonomy and from the uncertain English animal names.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Ancient animal names are often uncertain and local, making translation into another fauna vocabulary difficult. Greek identifications may reflect a different classification or familiar substitute. Because the Hebrew identifications are themselves provisional, the displayed species contrasts should not be presented as exact modern zoological determinations.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds bodily bathing to the carrier’s required washing. This changes the expressly prescribed purification procedure. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… evening. Whoever carries its carcass shall wash his …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… evening. Whoever carries any of their carcasses shall wash his …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 11:40:1 explains: והנשא את נבלתה HE ALSO THAT BEARETH THE CARRION OF IT [SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — The uncleanness resulting from bearing the carrion is more stringent than the uncleanness resulting from contact with it; for he who bears it thereby renders his garments unclean, whilst as for him who touches it his garments do not thereby become unclean, since it does not state regarding him in the preceding verse: “he shall wash his garments” (cf. Rashi on v. 25).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct reception of purity categories. Acts 10:9–16,28 places clean and unclean creatures in Peter’s vision and connects the episode with his reception of people previously kept apart. The narrative is a Christian use of purity language, not a zoological commentary. It should not be used to identify uncertain species or erase differences in washing requirements.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Carrying a carcass has consequences in both versions, but the explicitly required cleansing differs. Rabbinic teaching distinguishes actions and their impurity effects; Christian discussions of cleansing should respect that practical structure. The extra bathing instruction cannot be treated as merely decorative wording.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may align this carrier's purification with related laws requiring bodily washing as well as laundering. That is a plausible expansion by ritual analogy. A longer source cannot be excluded; the similarity to other procedures is a reason to investigate harmonization, not proof that it occurred in Greek.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The purification period is described in Hebrew with דְּמֵי טָהֳרָה (demei tohorah, “blood of purification”) and in Greek with αἵματι ἀκαθάρτῳ (haimati akathartō, “unclean blood”). The stated duration agrees across these readings, while the characterization of the blood differs. This is a distinction within the passage’s ritual vocabulary; neither the English adjective nor this single phrase should be expanded into a general judgment about childbirth or a woman’s moral character. Original-language check: Hebrew BHS 12:4 · Greek Rahlfs–Hanhart 12:4.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 12:4:2 explains: בדמי טהרה IN THE BLOOD OF PURIFICATION — Even though she see an issue of blood she is nevertheless clean (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Chapter 1 7). This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Gospel reception of the purification setting. Luke 2:22–24 places the offering after Jesus’ birth within the law of Moses. The narrative receives this ritual setting without explaining the Hebrew and Greek blood terminology. Ritual status in the ancient law should not be equated automatically with moral fault, and the shared periods remain distinct from the different labels.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The periods agree, but Hebrew purification language stands beside Greek uncleanness language. Rashi interprets the Hebrew blood category within the rules of ritual status; Luke 2 receives the purification and offering setting without discussing this wording difference. The shared setting supports comparison, while neither source makes the two descriptions lexically identical.

Likely Cause for Difference Translation-based hypothesis. The Greek may make ritual uncleanness explicit from the surrounding restrictions, where the Hebrew names the period in terms of purification. This contextual interpretation is plausible but unproved. A different source formulation also remains possible; agreement in the durations cannot establish which wording came first or why its description of the blood differs.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The purification period is described in Hebrew with דְּמֵי טָהֳרָה (demei tohorah, “blood of purification”) and in Greek with αἵματι ἀκαθάρτῳ (haimati akathartō, “unclean blood”). The stated duration agrees across these readings, while the characterization of the blood differs. This is a distinction within the passage’s ritual vocabulary; neither the English adjective nor this single phrase should be expanded into a general judgment about childbirth or a woman’s moral character. Original-language check: Hebrew BHS 12:5 · Greek Rahlfs–Hanhart 12:5.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 12:4:2 explains: בדמי טהרה IN THE BLOOD OF PURIFICATION — Even though she see an issue of blood she is nevertheless clean (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Chapter 1 7). This supplies a related rabbinic explanation of the passage or its subject; it is not a direct discussion of this particular Hebrew–Greek difference.

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Gospel reception of the purification setting. Luke 2:22–24 places the offering after Jesus’ birth within the law of Moses. The narrative receives this ritual setting without explaining the Hebrew and Greek blood terminology. Ritual status in the ancient law should not be equated automatically with moral fault, and the shared periods remain distinct from the different labels.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The periods agree, but Hebrew purification language stands beside Greek uncleanness language. Rashi interprets the Hebrew blood category within the rules of ritual status; Luke 2 receives the purification and offering setting without discussing this wording difference. The shared setting supports comparison, while neither source makes the two descriptions lexically identical.

Likely Cause for Difference Translation-based hypothesis. The Greek may make ritual uncleanness explicit from the surrounding restrictions, where the Hebrew names the period in terms of purification. This contextual interpretation is plausible but unproved. A different source formulation also remains possible; agreement in the durations cannot establish which wording came first or why its description of the blood differs.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew explicitly says not to isolate him; Greek commands isolation. The selected readings give opposing procedural instructions. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… declare him unclean; he shall not isolate him, for …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… declare him unclean and isolate him, for …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 13:11:1 explains: צרעת נשנת הוא IT IS AN OLD LEPROSY — i. e. it is an old leprous malady beneath the sound flesh, and this wound appears healthy above, but underneath it is full of moisture (pus), therefore the priest shall pronounce it unclean. Scripture states this in order that you should not say: since healthy flesh has come over it I shall pronounce it clean.

Christian teaching and understanding Gospel reception of priestly inspection and restoration. Mark 1:40–44 portrays Jesus cleansing a man and directing him to show himself to the priest and offer what Moses commanded. This directly receives the wider ritual framework, not each diagnostic clause. The ancient skin-condition vocabulary should not be treated as one assured modern diagnosis.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The priest's decision governs isolation and recognition of the condition. Rabbinic interpretation explains the Hebrew exemption from further quarantine, while Gospel cleansing narratives retain priestly inspection as a meaningful setting. The two procedures must remain distinct before later theological comparisons are added.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The negative produces opposing procedural instructions. Coordination with nearby isolation rules or a distinct source reading may explain the contrast, but neither explanation is demonstrated here. The priority is to preserve the printed negative and examine its witnesses rather than presume negligence because the result seems difficult.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The specified absent hair is black in Hebrew, yellowish in Greek. The diagnostic condition is different. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… the scaly lesion and it does not …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… examines the lesion of the broken patch and it does …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 13:31:1 explains: ושער שחור אין בו AND THERE IS NO BLACK HAIR IN IT [THE PRIEST SHALL SHUT HIM UP] — Consequently, if there is black hair in it, he is clean, and does not require to be shut up — for black hair is a characteristic of cleanness in cases of נתקים, as it is stated, (v. 37) “if there is black hair grown up in it … [he is clean]” (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 8 9).

Christian teaching and understanding Gospel reception of priestly inspection and restoration. Mark 1:40–44 portrays Jesus cleansing a man and directing him to show himself to the priest and offer what Moses commanded. This directly receives the wider ritual framework, not each diagnostic clause. The ancient skin-condition vocabulary should not be treated as one assured modern diagnosis.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The law distinguishes observable signs in a priestly examination. Rabbinic explanation concerns those signs, and Christian healing accounts provide a later narrative connection. Black and yellowish hair cannot be made equivalent simply because both versions discuss a similar condition.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Ancient diagnostic vocabulary may have been interpreted differently, or the source behind Greek may have specified another hair color. Nearby descriptions provide possible points of alignment. Without apparatus evidence, the color contrast should be recorded without choosing a confident transmission history or modern diagnosis.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew commands the affected person’s repeated cry; Greek says he shall be called unclean. Torn / loosened clothing and loose hair / uncovered head also differ. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… garments, let his hair hang loose, cover his upper lip, …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… garments loosened, his head uncovered, and a covering around his mouth, and …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 13:45:2 explains: פרוע means his head shall be over-grown with hair (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 13 6). This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Gospel reception of priestly inspection and restoration. Mark 1:40–44 portrays Jesus cleansing a man and directing him to show himself to the priest and offer what Moses commanded. This directly receives the wider ritual framework, not each diagnostic clause. The ancient skin-condition vocabulary should not be treated as one assured modern diagnosis.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The Hebrew foregrounds the affected person's announcement, while Greek foregrounds the imposed designation. Rabbinic interpretation supplies practical details, and Christian healing narratives attend to restoration. Neither reception should collapse ritual status into personal moral worth or substitute a modern disease name with unwarranted certainty.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may recast a person's warning cry as the status by which the person is designated, shifting action into classification. Clothing and hair terms also permit interpretive variation. This can explain a different portrayal without proving that one community lacked public notification practices.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek expressly requires both first lambs to be year-old; Hebrew specifies the age only for the ewe lamb. Greek’s third animal is a sheep without an explicit female adjective. Log / kotyle is the source-unit correspondence. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… one unblemished year-old ewe lamb, three tenths of …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… one unblemished year-old sheep, three tenths of …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 14:10:2 explains: ושלשה עשרנים AND THREE TENTH DEALS [OF FLOUR] — as the drink-offerings of these three he-lambs (Menachot 91a) — because the sin-offering and the guilt-offering of the leper require drink-offerings (although they are not required with other sin- and guilt-offerings).

Christian teaching and understanding Gospel reception of priestly inspection and restoration. Mark 1:40–44 portrays Jesus cleansing a man and directing him to show himself to the priest and offer what Moses commanded. This directly receives the wider ritual framework, not each diagnostic clause. The ancient skin-condition vocabulary should not be treated as one assured modern diagnosis.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Restoration involves specified offerings, not an undifferentiated gift. Rabbinic legal interpretation identifies those requirements; Jesus' instruction to make the Mosaic offering after cleansing supplies a Christian connection. That reference does not determine which column's age or sex description is textually prior.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may distribute the age requirement across both initial animals and use a broader designation for the third. That can arise from interpretation of adjective scope and ritual expectations. A different inventory in its source remains possible, and the precise sex and age requirements should not be silently equalized.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew says cleansing from uncleanness; Greek says from his sin while calling the person unclean. This materially changes the stated object of cleansing; later doctrinal conclusions remain interpretation. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… his uncleanness. Afterward he shall slaughter the …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… his sin. Afterward the priest shall slaughter the …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 15:31:2 explains: ולא ימתו בטמאתם THAT THEY DIE NOT IN THEIR UNCLEANNESS [WHEN THEY DEFILE MY TABERNACLE] — Thus you see that the penalty of “excision” to which one who defiles the Holy Place is subject (cf. Numbers 19:13) is here called מיתה (i. e. מיתה בידי שמים) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 125).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. John 9:1–3 rejects the disciples’ assumption that a man’s condition must be caused by his or his parents’ sin. Read alongside the purification language, it cautions against automatic moral blame for bodily conditions. John is not interpreting this Levitical noun directly; the connection is an editorial comparison of responsibility and restoration.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic purity analysis and Christian healing theology must both distinguish ritual restoration from automatic blame for illness. The Greek wording is consequential, yet its setting remains a cleansing procedure. John 9 provides a useful Christian caution against assuming that a bodily condition proves a person's sin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may use sin vocabulary within a purification rite where Hebrew names uncleanness. Ancient sacrificial language can overlap without making every ritual condition a personal moral fault. The choice may be interpretive, but a full theory of disease, sin, and punishment cannot be inferred from this noun alone.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek expressly includes not; Hebrew says it has spread. The following removal command is therefore triggered by opposite stated findings. The Greek negative is retained despite the procedural difficulty. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… return and examine it. If the lesion …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… return and examine the house. If the lesion …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 14:40:1 explains: וחלצו את האבנים — Understand וחלצו as the Targum does: וישלפון, i.e. they shall remove them from there. It is similar to, (Deuteronomy 25:9) וחלצה נעלו— which is an expression for removing ("she shall remove his shoe”).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical thematic comparison. 1 Corinthians 3:9–17 uses building and sanctuary imagery to address communal responsibility. This is a later Christian metaphor, not reception of the house-inspection rule as a construction manual. It may prompt reflection on communal care, while the spread/not-spread condition still requires its own procedural and textual analysis.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The comparison concerns a house inspection and the next prescribed action. Rabbinic explanation clarifies the Hebrew sequence, while Christian house imagery offers only a broader analogy. Such symbolism cannot resolve the opposing spread/not-spread findings or replace a careful procedural reading.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. A negative in the selected Greek changes the finding that precedes removal of building materials. A distinct source or alignment with another procedural stage may be investigated, but the difficulty is unresolved. It should not be silently corrected simply because one sequence appears easier to understand.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek specifies seed, expands the duration clause, and does not preserve Hebrew’s straightforward either/or construction. The difficult Greek description is retained without assigning a modern disease. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… is his uncleanness.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… is his uncleanness within him. All the days of his body’s flow, in which his body has become stopped up through the flow, are his uncleanness.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 15:3:1 explains: רר [WHETHER HIS FLESH] DRIP — This word is connected with ריר "spittle" — the meaning is that his flesh runs with its issue as spittle, i. e. that it (the flow) comes forth clear in appearance (not thick and troubled).

Christian teaching and understanding Gospel contextual comparison. Mark 5:25–34 narrates a woman’s long bleeding, her approach to Jesus, and restoration. The episode provides a Christian connection to bodily vulnerability and contact within a purity-shaped world. It does not diagnose every discharge in Leviticus or determine which pronoun or water specification is textually prior.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Both texts define a condition relevant to ritual impurity, but do so differently. Rabbinic analysis distinguishes the legal signs; Christian accounts of bodily healing offer a thematic connection. The comparison should preserve ancient categories without converting them into a medical diagnosis or a moral accusation.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The Greek may interpret an uncertain bodily description through a more specific discharge and duration. Its altered conjunction also restructures the alternatives. Ancient technical language and source variation are plausible areas of explanation; assigning a modern diagnosis would add precision that the wording cannot support.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek specifies a donkey saddle and supplies the evening endpoint; Hebrew gives a broader riding-seat category without that endpoint here. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “Any riding seat on which the …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “Any donkey saddle on which the …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 15:9:1 explains: וכל המרכב AND ANYTHING FOR RIDING — even though he has not sat upon it when riding, e. g. the hold in front of the saddle, which is called arcon in old French, becomes unclean as a part of something for riding on (משום מרכב), and the אוכף, saddle, which is called alves in old French, is unclean as being something to sit upon (משום מושב) (Eruvin 27a).

Christian teaching and understanding Gospel contextual comparison. Mark 5:25–34 narrates a woman’s long bleeding, her approach to Jesus, and restoration. The episode provides a Christian connection to bodily vulnerability and contact within a purity-shaped world. It does not diagnose every discharge in Leviticus or determine which pronoun or water specification is textually prior.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The concern is transmission of ritual impurity through an object used by the affected person. Rabbinic interpretation describes the object category; Christian reflection on contact and healing addresses a different narrative setting. The narrowed object and added endpoint remain part of the legal comparison.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may identify the riding object through a familiar animal and supply the duration from the surrounding purity laws. That is plausible concrete clarification and procedural alignment. A fuller source remains possible, while the broader Hebrew category should not be narrowed to the Greek example without notice.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew requires living water; Greek simply says water. This changes the stated water requirement. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… the man with the discharge is cleansed …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… the man with a seminal discharge is cleansed …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 15:13:2 explains: שבעת ימים לטהרתו [THEN SHALL HE NUMBER TO HIMSELF] SEVEN DAYS FROM THE DATE WHEN HE CEASED — i. e. seven days clean (free) from the uncleanness resulting from the issue, i. e. in which he sees no issue, and all of them (of the seven days) must be consecutive (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 5 6).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical thematic comparison. John 4:10–14 uses living-water language in Jesus’ promise to the Samaritan woman. That is a theological image of divine gift, whereas Leviticus prescribes washing water in a ritual procedure. The connection is meaningful precisely when the literal water requirement and its later symbolic use are kept distinct.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic purity teaching gives attention to the kind of water required. Christian living-water imagery supplies a meaningful theological connection but does not define the ancient washing procedure. The literal specification should be understood before its metaphorical use elsewhere in the Bible is explored.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may use the general water term without repeating the Hebrew qualifier, perhaps treating the cleansing context as sufficient. A shorter source is also possible. Because living water can specify a practical water source, the omission should not automatically be explained as stylistic economy with no ritual effect.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew’s masculine object is the bed or article; Greek’s feminine pronoun points to her. The expressly described contact differs; the Hebrew sentence is syntactically compressed. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “Whether it is the bed …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “If, while she is on her …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 15:23:3 explains: בנגעו בו WHEN HE TOUCHETH IT — "it" (בו) — this refers only to מרכב which, as has just been stated, is included in the law on account of the words על הכלי.

Christian teaching and understanding Gospel contextual comparison. Mark 5:25–34 narrates a woman’s long bleeding, her approach to Jesus, and restoration. The episode provides a Christian connection to bodily vulnerability and contact within a purity-shaped world. It does not diagnose every discharge in Leviticus or determine which pronoun or water specification is textually prior.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Contact with a person and contact with an article are related but distinct cases. Rabbinic explanation follows the Hebrew sequence, while Christian healing narratives invite reflection on touch and restoration. Neither theological application should collapse the law's separate objects of contact.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. A pronoun may be resolved toward the woman rather than the previously named objects. Greek's grammatical gender makes that interpretation explicit. This is plausibly a syntactic construal of a compressed sequence, although a different source pronoun remains possible and the resulting contact rule is materially different.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew says them, referring to the preceding articles; Greek says her. This materially changes the expressed contact that triggers the washing requirement. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “Whoever touches them shall be unclean. …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “Whoever touches her shall be unclean. …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 15:23:3 explains: בנגעו בו WHEN HE TOUCHETH IT — "it" (בו) — this refers only to מרכב which, as has just been stated, is included in the law on account of the words על הכלי.

Christian teaching and understanding Gospel contextual comparison. Mark 5:25–34 narrates a woman’s long bleeding, her approach to Jesus, and restoration. The episode provides a Christian connection to bodily vulnerability and contact within a purity-shaped world. It does not diagnose every discharge in Leviticus or determine which pronoun or water specification is textually prior.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Contact with a person and contact with an article are related but distinct cases. Rabbinic explanation follows the Hebrew sequence, while Christian healing narratives invite reflection on touch and restoration. Neither theological application should collapse the law's separate objects of contact.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. A pronoun may be resolved toward the woman rather than the previously named objects. Greek's grammatical gender makes that interpretation explicit. This is plausibly a syntactic construal of a compressed sequence, although a different source pronoun remains possible and the resulting contact rule is materially different.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds an explicit cleansing action for the priests before presenting the living goat, materially expanding the stated ritual sequence. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… and the altar, he shall present the …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… and the altar, and perform cleansing for the priests. He shall present …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 16:19:1 explains: והזה עליו מן הדם AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE UPON IT WITH THE BLOOD — After he has made with his finger the application of the blood upon the horns of the altar he shall make seven sprinklings on its top (עליו signifies "upon it") (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 12).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Christian reception of the Day of Atonement. Hebrews 9:6–14 discusses sanctuary access, the high priest’s yearly entry, and purification before presenting Christ’s work. This is an extended theological reading of the ritual pattern. It does not make every beneficiary or step in the Hebrew and Greek instructions identical.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The rite orders purification and the goat's presentation carefully. Rabbinic exposition follows those stages, while Hebrews receives the Day of Atonement as a framework for discussing access and mediation. The added priestly action remains a textual distinction within that shared ritual setting.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may make the priests' cleansing explicit within the summary of completed sanctuary purification. This could arise from ritual clarification or a fuller source. The addition belongs to the sequence before presentation of the living goat and should not be imported into Hebrew as though already expressed there.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek expressly adds his household and the comparison with the priests to this statement of beneficiaries. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… and the people.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… and the people, as for the priests.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 16:24:1 explains: 'ורחץ את בשרו וגו‎‎ AND HE SHALL LAVE HIS FLESH etc. — Above (v. 4) we have learned from the statement "therefore shall he lave his flesh and so put them on" that whenever he (the High-Priest) changed from the golden garments into the linen ones he had to immerse himself (for on the occasion of that immersion, mentioned v. 4, he took off his golden garments in which he performed the service connected with the continual burnt offering due in the morning and put on the linen garments for the performance of the service peculiar to that Day); […]

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Christian reception of the Day of Atonement. Hebrews 9:6–14 discusses sanctuary access, the high priest’s yearly entry, and purification before presenting Christ’s work. This is an extended theological reading of the ritual pattern. It does not make every beneficiary or step in the Hebrew and Greek instructions identical.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The recipients of atonement matter to the rite's structure. Rabbinic interpretation specifies the priest's obligations, while Hebrews distinguishes a priest's offering for himself from his work for others. These connections clarify the issue without making household and people interchangeable nouns.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may coordinate this atonement statement with other passages that distinguish the priest's household from the wider people. Such ritual alignment could explain the explicit household language. A fuller source is another possibility; the addition should not be treated as proof that Hebrew excludes every household member.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek expressly includes resident newcomers in this initial slaughter rule; Hebrew names only the house of Israel here. Both include foreigners in later rules. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… house of Israel who slaughters an ox, …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… sons of Israel or of the newcomers attached to you who slaughters a …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 17:3:1 explains: ישחט שור או כשב‎ ‎‎‏ אשר [WHAT MAN SOEVER] THAT SLAUGHTERETH AN OX, OR A LAMB — Scripture is speaking here of consecrated animals since it says (v. 4) "and bringeth it not unto the appointed tent to offer an offering" (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 6 3; Zevachim 106a).

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of sacrifice and blood. Acts 15:19–21,28–29 addresses idol-related pollution and blood in instructions to Gentile believers, while Hebrews 9:18–22 connects blood with covenant and cleansing. These are distinct Christian uses of Torah-related categories. They do not by themselves establish a single complete theory of the wording or atonement rationale here.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The named community subject differs at the beginning of the rule. Rabbinic interpretation considers who is obligated, while Christian discussions of worship across peoples raise a broader question of inclusion. The comparison should distinguish this specific legal addressee from later theological membership categories.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may align the opening slaughter rule with later provisions that explicitly include resident newcomers. A legal generalization across the passage is plausible. A fuller source cannot be excluded, and the added group identifies the wording's scope rather than proving that Hebrew excludes foreigners from every related law.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew se‘irim gives a goat-like demonic designation; Greek mataioi calls the objects vain or empty. This substantially changes the portrayal of the forbidden recipients, without proving a denial of all spiritual beings in Greek. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… sacrifices to the goat-demons after which they …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… sacrifices to the vain things after which they …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 17:7:1 explains: לשעירים .means TO THE DEMONS. Similar is (Isaiah 13:21) “and demons (ושעירים) shall dance there" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 9 8). This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic thematic connection. 1 Corinthians 10:19–22 warns against participation in idolatrous sacrificial fellowship. Paul distinguishes an idol’s status from the dangerous participation he describes. This offers a close Christian context for the prohibition, while leaving the Hebrew goat-like designation and the Greek characterization as vain or empty independently visible.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic teaching identifies the forbidden cultic recipients, while Paul warns against participation in idolatrous sacrifices. Those concerns overlap, but the demon-like image and the language of vanity remain distinct. Neither column should be treated as a complete account of the spiritual beings involved.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may characterize prohibited recipients by their worthlessness instead of reproducing the Hebrew goat-like designation. That interpretive rendering changes the imagery without necessarily denying spiritual agency. It supplies no evidence that the translator had a single systematic theory of demons or demythologization.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew locates the life of flesh בַּדָּם (baddam, “in the blood”) and says blood makes atonement בַּנֶּפֶשׁ (bannefesh, “by or with the life”). Greek explicitly uses ἀντὶ τῆς ψυχῆς (anti tēs psychēs, “in place of the life”). The exchange language is clearer in Greek, but the range of the Hebrew preposition remains relevant. Neither construction alone supplies a complete theory of atonement. Original-language check: Hebrew BHS 17:11 · Greek Rahlfs–Hanhart 17:11.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Two comments on this verse. Rashi explains the altar’s blood through life making expiation for life. Ramban develops the connection between blood, life, and its reservation for atonement. He also reports Maimonides’ explanation involving idolatrous practices, while finding the verse’s stated life-based rationale more direct. These paraphrases show distinct Jewish explanations; neither commentator’s later reasoning establishes the origin of the Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of sacrifice and blood. Acts 15:19–21,28–29 addresses idol-related pollution and blood in instructions to Gentile believers, while Hebrews 9:18–22 connects blood with covenant and cleansing. These are distinct Christian uses of Torah-related categories. They do not by themselves establish a single complete theory of the wording or atonement rationale here.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Both columns connect blood, life, and atonement. Rashi’s life-for-life explanation and Ramban’s discussion show why the Hebrew cannot simply be opposed to every idea of exchange. Acts 15 and Hebrews 9 develop different Christian uses of blood language. The Greek preposition remains a real lexical difference, while reception should be considered source by source rather than reduced to one Jewish and one Christian theory.

Likely Cause for Difference Translation-based hypothesis. Greek may explicate the atoning relation through substitutionary language where Hebrew uses a more compact preposition. That is a plausible interpretive clarification. Because the Hebrew construction also admits debate, the difference should not be turned into a simple opposition between incompatible atonement systems.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Molech and passing over / a ruler and serving changes the stated recipient and act. Greek also has holy name rather than name of your God. Fire is not explicitly named in either selected verse and is not inserted into the translation.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 18:21:1 explains: למלך [AND THOU SHALT NOT LET ANY OF THY SEED PASS THROUGH THE FIRE] TO MOLECH — This was an idol the name of which was "Molech", and this was the manner in which it was worshipped: that he (the father) handed his child (lit., his son, but it applies to his daughter also; cf. Deuteronomy 18:10) over to the priests of the idol. These lit two large pyres one opposite the other and made the child to pass on foot between the two pyres (Sanhedrin 64b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sexual and cultic boundaries. 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 discusses a prohibited family union within a Christian congregation, while Acts 15:20 joins sexual wrongdoing with idol-related concerns. These are later applications in different communities. They should not be treated as translations of each Levitical kinship term or as permission to reenact its ancient penalties.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The prohibition is shared, but the recipient and activity are expressed differently. Rabbinic law develops the Hebrew cultic case, while Christian warnings against idolatry provide a broader comparison. The ancient penalties and their judicial setting must be distinguished from permission for private violence.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The consonants associated with Molech can invite interpretation through a ruler or royal designation, making Greek a plausible lexical construal rather than a mere transliteration. The shifts in act, number, and profanation require separate attention. The wording does not equate all civil authority with this prohibited cult.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew describes judgment upon the land and its vomiting out inhabitants; Greek describes repayment to them and the land’s indignation. The expressed agents and result differ materially. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… and the land vomited out its inhabitants.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… and the land became indignant with those settled upon it.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 18:28:1 explains: ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם THAT THE LAND VOMIT NOT YOU OUT — A parable! This may be compared to the case of a prince (i. e. a sensitive, refined person) to whom one gives a disgusting thing to eat which he cannot retain on his stomach but vomits it out thus Eretz-Yisrael is unable to retain sinners on its soil (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 14). The Targum renders it by: ולא תרוקן a term for ״emptying out״ — it (the earth) empties itself of them.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sexual and cultic boundaries. 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 discusses a prohibited family union within a Christian congregation, while Acts 15:20 joins sexual wrongdoing with idol-related concerns. These are later applications in different communities. They should not be treated as translations of each Levitical kinship term or as permission to reenact its ancient penalties.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The land participates in the covenant warning in both versions, but differently. Rabbinic reception elaborates the moral conditions of residence; Christian comparison with judgment and holiness concerns the same ethical seriousness. Expulsion and indignation should remain distinct even where one may lead to the other.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may translate the land's vomiting metaphor through the hostile response it signifies, indignation. This is a plausible change from bodily image to emotional characterization. Where the stated consequence also changes, the translation should preserve that difference rather than assume the two expressions have identical force.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Vomiting out / indignation again changes the stated consequence; Hebrew’s nation is singular, Greek’s nations plural. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… it, as it vomited out the nation before …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… it, as it became indignant with the nations before …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 18:28:1 explains: ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם THAT THE LAND VOMIT NOT YOU OUT — A parable! This may be compared to the case of a prince (i. e. a sensitive, refined person) to whom one gives a disgusting thing to eat which he cannot retain on his stomach but vomits it out thus Eretz-Yisrael is unable to retain sinners on its soil (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 14). The Targum renders it by: ולא תרוקן a term for ״emptying out״ — it (the earth) empties itself of them.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sexual and cultic boundaries. 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 discusses a prohibited family union within a Christian congregation, while Acts 15:20 joins sexual wrongdoing with idol-related concerns. These are later applications in different communities. They should not be treated as translations of each Levitical kinship term or as permission to reenact its ancient penalties.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The land participates in the covenant warning in both versions, but differently. Rabbinic reception elaborates the moral conditions of residence; Christian comparison with judgment and holiness concerns the same ethical seriousness. Expulsion and indignation should remain distinct even where one may lead to the other.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may translate the land's vomiting metaphor through the hostile response it signifies, indignation. This is a plausible change from bodily image to emotional characterization. Where the stated consequence also changes, the translation should preserve that difference rather than assume the two expressions have identical force.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew’s blood clause is here read as prohibiting standing by while life is endangered; Greek explicitly prohibits a hostile conspiracy. The Hebrew idiom also admits a hostile-action reading, which would narrow the contrast. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… not go about as a slanderer among your people. You …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… not go about deceitfully in your nation. You …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 19:16:2 explains: לא תעמד על דם רעך NEITHER SHALT THOU STAND AGAINST THE BLOOD OF THY FELLOW — witnessing his death, you being able to rescue him: if, for instance, he is drowning in the river or if a wild beast or a robber is attacking him (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 8; Sanhedrin 73a).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct reception of the chapter’s neighbor command. Matthew 22:37–40 joins love of neighbor from Leviticus 19:18 with love of God from Deuteronomy. St Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.13 explains Christ’s moral teaching as fulfillment and extension. These provide a Christian framework, not a direct gloss on every agricultural or textile rule nearby.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi's rescue-oriented interpretation emphasizes responsibility to prevent harm. Christian teaching on love of neighbor supplies a direct ethical connection to Leviticus 19. The Greek conspiracy prohibition and the Hebrew duty of intervention can coexist, but they focus on different forms of responsibility.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The terse Hebrew blood idiom can be construed as refusing help or as actively threatening life. Greek selects a hostile-action interpretation. This lexical ambiguity provides a plausible explanation and limits the strength of any claim that the two source traditions necessarily prescribe opposing conduct.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Field / vineyard changes the stated agricultural scope. The fabric is expressed through Hebrew shaatnez / Greek two-material, spurious weaving; the precise textile rule requires interpretation. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… on a garment of mixed fabric, shaatnez.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… a spurious garment woven from two materials.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 19:19:2 explains: ובגד כלאים NEITHER SHALL A GARMENT MINGLED OF LINEN AND WOOLLEN [COME UPON THEE] — Why is this st‎atement made (how does the particular form of words used here tell us some point of law which is not contained in Deuteronomy 22:21 which bears upon the same subject)? Because Scripture states there “Thou shalt not wear שעטנז, wool and linen together” I might think that one must not wear in combination wool (i. e. wool as it comes from the shearing) and combed flax! Scripture therefore states here “a garment (i. e. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Direct reception of the chapter’s neighbor command. Matthew 22:37–40 joins love of neighbor from Leviticus 19:18 with love of God from Deuteronomy. St Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.13 explains Christ’s moral teaching as fulfillment and extension. These provide a Christian framework, not a direct gloss on every agricultural or textile rule nearby.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The law places boundaries around agricultural and textile combinations. Rabbinic interpretation defines the categories; Christian reception of Torah's moral and ritual commands asks a different question about their application. That later debate cannot settle whether field or vineyard is the more original wording.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret the cultivated plot through a vineyard, or reflect a more specific source term. The fabric expression also renders a technical Hebrew category through explanatory Greek words. Such agricultural and textile vocabulary requires careful comparison before treating the traditions as identical practical rules.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew uses uncircumcision and treating fruit as prohibited; Greek uses purging and uncleanness. The ritual characterization and expressed action differ, although the three-year food restriction agrees. Greek also expands the land clause. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… enter the land and plant any food …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… enter the land that the Lord your God gives you and plant any …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 19:23:2 explains: שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים THREE YEARS IT SHALL BE AS UNCIRCUMCISED UNTO YOU — From when does one count its three years? From the time of its (the tree's) being planted (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 3 3). One might think that if one has laid it (the fruit) by during these three years it shall become permitted for use after the three years, Scripture therefore states, יהיה which implies it shall remain in its former state of being (forbidden as it was during the entire three years).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct reception of the chapter’s neighbor command. Matthew 22:37–40 joins love of neighbor from Leviticus 19:18 with love of God from Deuteronomy. St Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.13 explains Christ’s moral teaching as fulfillment and extension. These provide a Christian framework, not a direct gloss on every agricultural or textile rule nearby.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic exposition develops the fruit's prohibited status from the circumcision image. Christian fruit imagery offers a thematic connection, not a replacement agricultural instruction. The shared waiting period should be stated alongside the different descriptions of what happens to the tree and its produce.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may render the Hebrew circumcision metaphor through the ritual condition and action it understands the metaphor to imply. This is a plausible interpretation of figurative agricultural language. The common three-year prohibition remains firm, even though the expressed act and characterization of the fruit differ.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew reads blood; Greek reads mountains. The stated eating prohibition is substantially different. Greek also specifies bird observation in the second divination term. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… You shall not practice divination or interpret …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… You shall not divine by omens or observe birds for divination.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 19:26:1 explains: לא תאכלו על הדם YE SHALL NOT EAT ANYTHING על הדם — This text is interpreted in many different ways in Treatise Sanhedrin 63a: It is taken as a prohibition of eating the flesh of the sacrifices before their blood has been sprinkled; and as a prohibition addressed to him who eats of the flesh of a non-consecrated animal (חולין) before life has entirely left it; and many other interpretations are there given.

Christian teaching and understanding Direct reception of the chapter’s neighbor command. Matthew 22:37–40 joins love of neighbor from Leviticus 19:18 with love of God from Deuteronomy. St Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.13 explains Christ’s moral teaching as fulfillment and extension. These provide a Christian framework, not a direct gloss on every agricultural or textile rule nearby.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The food prohibition and divination warning must be read as separate clauses. Rabbinic explanations of eating over blood and Christian warnings concerning idol meals provide relevant contexts. Neither licenses replacing mountains with blood in the Greek or treating every meal on elevated ground as the law's certain referent.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Blood and mountains may reflect different consonantal readings or distinct understandings of a compressed prohibition. The Greek can be intelligible in an illicit cultic-meal setting, but that context does not prove its origin. Fuller textual evidence is needed before preferring a specific reconstruction.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew names Molech; Greek has a ruler, archōn. The named recipient is materially different; the Greek wording alone does not identify every civil ruler with Molech. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… his offspring to Molech shall surely be put to …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… his offspring to a ruler, let him be put to …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 20:2:1 explains: ואל בני ישראל תאמר AGAIN THOU SHALT SAY TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL the punishments for the transgression of the prohibitions mentioned in the previous chapters. This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sexual and cultic boundaries. 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 discusses a prohibited family union within a Christian congregation, while Acts 15:20 joins sexual wrongdoing with idol-related concerns. These are later applications in different communities. They should not be treated as translations of each Levitical kinship term or as permission to reenact its ancient penalties.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The prohibition is shared, but the recipient and activity are expressed differently. Rabbinic law develops the Hebrew cultic case, while Christian warnings against idolatry provide a broader comparison. The ancient penalties and their judicial setting must be distinguished from permission for private violence.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The consonants associated with Molech can invite interpretation through a ruler or royal designation, making Greek a plausible lexical construal rather than a mere transliteration. The shifts in act, number, and profanation require separate attention. The wording does not equate all civil authority with this prohibited cult.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Besides Molech/ruler, My holy name becomes the name of those consecrated to Me. Greek shifts the object of profanation from the divine name to consecrated persons or things. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… My holy name.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… profaning the name of those consecrated to Me.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 20:3:4 explains: למען טמא את מקדשי TO DEFILE MY מקדש — This means the “Congregation of Israel" which is sanctified to Me. The word מקדש does not imply the Sanctuary only but anything that is holy to God, as in the expression (Leviticus 21:23) “that he profane not my holy things (‎‎‏מקדשי‎).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sexual and cultic boundaries. 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 discusses a prohibited family union within a Christian congregation, while Acts 15:20 joins sexual wrongdoing with idol-related concerns. These are later applications in different communities. They should not be treated as translations of each Levitical kinship term or as permission to reenact its ancient penalties.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The prohibition is shared, but the recipient and activity are expressed differently. Rabbinic law develops the Hebrew cultic case, while Christian warnings against idolatry provide a broader comparison. The ancient penalties and their judicial setting must be distinguished from permission for private violence.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The consonants associated with Molech can invite interpretation through a ruler or royal designation, making Greek a plausible lexical construal rather than a mere transliteration. The shifts in act, number, and profanation require separate attention. The wording does not equate all civil authority with this prohibited cult.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The different recipient continues from verse 2; the community’s failure to act is shared. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… the land deliberately close their eyes to …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… the land deliberately overlook that man with their eyes when …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 20:4:1 explains: ‎ואם העלם יעלימו AND IF [THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND] DO ANY WAYS HIDE THEIR EYES [FROM THE MAN] — If they hide their eyes in one thing they will in the end hide their eyes also in many other matters (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 9); if the Small Sanhedrin (a judicial court of twenty-three) hide their eyes, in the end the Great Sanhedrin (the Supreme Court of seventy-one) will also hide their eyes (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 11).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sexual and cultic boundaries. 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 discusses a prohibited family union within a Christian congregation, while Acts 15:20 joins sexual wrongdoing with idol-related concerns. These are later applications in different communities. They should not be treated as translations of each Levitical kinship term or as permission to reenact its ancient penalties.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The prohibition is shared, but the recipient and activity are expressed differently. Rabbinic law develops the Hebrew cultic case, while Christian warnings against idolatry provide a broader comparison. The ancient penalties and their judicial setting must be distinguished from permission for private violence.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The consonants associated with Molech can invite interpretation through a ruler or royal designation, making Greek a plausible lexical construal rather than a mere transliteration. The shifts in act, number, and profanation require separate attention. The wording does not equate all civil authority with this prohibited cult.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek has plural rulers and describes accomplices as those agreeing with him; Hebrew describes all who follow him in prostitution after Molech. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… with all who prostitute themselves after him by …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… with all who agree with him so that he prostitutes himself after rulers.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 20:5:3 explains: לזנות אחרי המלך TO COMMIT WHOREDOM WITH MOLECH — This is intended to include the worship also of any other idol which he worshipped in this way (by letting his children pass through the fire in honor of it) even though this is not the manner of worship peculiar to it (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 15; Sanhedrin 64a).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sexual and cultic boundaries. 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 discusses a prohibited family union within a Christian congregation, while Acts 15:20 joins sexual wrongdoing with idol-related concerns. These are later applications in different communities. They should not be treated as translations of each Levitical kinship term or as permission to reenact its ancient penalties.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The prohibition is shared, but the recipient and activity are expressed differently. Rabbinic law develops the Hebrew cultic case, while Christian warnings against idolatry provide a broader comparison. The ancient penalties and their judicial setting must be distinguished from permission for private violence.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The consonants associated with Molech can invite interpretation through a ruler or royal designation, making Greek a plausible lexical construal rather than a mere transliteration. The shifts in act, number, and profanation require separate attention. The wording does not equate all civil authority with this prohibited cult.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The final bearer of liability changes from he to they. Both already face the preceding communal sanction, but Greek expressly makes both bear the sin. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… he shall bear his guilt.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… they shall bear their sin.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 20:17:1 explains: חסד הוא IT IS A WICKED THING — It is an Aramaic expression, the Hebrew חרפה (disgrace) being in that language חסודא (cf. Onkelos on Genesis 34:14). A Midrashic explanation of it (of חסד הוא) is; If you should say, "But Cain married his sister!" then I reply, Cain's case was an exceptional one; an act of kindness (חסד) was done by the Omnipresent in order that His world might be built up through him (i. e. He made the propagation of the human race possible through this union), as it is said (Psalms 89:3) "The world was built up through חסד, loving-kindness" (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 11 11; Sanhedrin 58b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sexual and cultic boundaries. 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 discusses a prohibited family union within a Christian congregation, while Acts 15:20 joins sexual wrongdoing with idol-related concerns. These are later applications in different communities. They should not be treated as translations of each Levitical kinship term or as permission to reenact its ancient penalties.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Both persons are involved in the prohibited relationship, but the concluding bearer of sin differs grammatically. Rabbinic legal interpretation and Christian teaching on sexual responsibility can illuminate that point. They do not authorize silently changing a singular subject into a plural one.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may carry the earlier plural penalty forward into the final liability clause, making shared responsibility explicit. This resembles grammatical coordination within the law. A different source remains possible, while the Hebrew singular should not be taken to erase the already stated communal sanction affecting both parties.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek uses broader kinship terms and omits they shall bear their sin. Hebrew specifically concerns an aunt by marriage and the uncle’s nakedness; the exact scope of Greek kinship language needs contextual interpretation. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness. They shall bear their sin; they shall die …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… nakedness of his kinship. They shall die …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 20:20:1 explains: אשר ישכב את דדתו AND IF A MAN SHALL LIE WITH HIS AUNT… [THEY SHALL DIE CHILDLESS] — This verse is intended to teach that the "excision" mentioned above (18:29, where "all these abominations includes the union prohibited in v. 14 of that chapter) consists in their (the offenders’) passing from this world childless.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sexual and cultic boundaries. 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 discusses a prohibited family union within a Christian congregation, while Acts 15:20 joins sexual wrongdoing with idol-related concerns. These are later applications in different communities. They should not be treated as translations of each Levitical kinship term or as permission to reenact its ancient penalties.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The laws require precise attention to family relationship and consequence. Rabbinic interpretation supplies that precision within Hebrew law, while Christian discussion of forbidden unions provides a later comparison. The broader Greek terms and explicit death addition should be presented without importing a modern legal category.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Kinship vocabulary can be broader in translation, and Greek may align the consequence with the adjacent childlessness-and-death formula. Such legal coordination is plausible. The exact relationship and added death wording remain distinct questions, neither settled simply by the similarity of neighboring prohibitions.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds death to the childlessness formula. Hebrew here says be childless, unlike the explicit die childless in verse 20. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “If a man takes his brother’s …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “If anyone takes his brother’s …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 20:21:1 explains: נדה הוא means, this cohabitation ought to be kept at a distance (avoided) and is loathsome. Our Rabbis explained that these words prohibit the slightest approach to her [I.e. one is liable for superficial contact, as is defined in the commentary on verse 18] just as though she were a נדה in the case of whom such intimacy is expressly stated as forbidden, as it says, (v. 18) “he hath uncovered her fountain” (cf. Yevamot 54a).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sexual and cultic boundaries. 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 discusses a prohibited family union within a Christian congregation, while Acts 15:20 joins sexual wrongdoing with idol-related concerns. These are later applications in different communities. They should not be treated as translations of each Levitical kinship term or as permission to reenact its ancient penalties.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The laws require precise attention to family relationship and consequence. Rabbinic interpretation supplies that precision within Hebrew law, while Christian discussion of forbidden unions provides a later comparison. The broader Greek terms and explicit death addition should be presented without importing a modern legal category.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Kinship vocabulary can be broader in translation, and Greek may align the consequence with the adjacent childlessness-and-death formula. Such legal coordination is plausible. The exact relationship and added death wording remain distinct questions, neither settled simply by the similarity of neighboring prohibitions.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew depicts expulsion by vomiting; Greek depicts the land’s indignation. The warning is shared, but the image differs. As in 18:28, the explicitly stated consequence differs: expulsion versus indignation. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… dwell does not vomit you out.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… dwell is not indignant with you.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 18:28:1 explains: ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם THAT THE LAND VOMIT NOT YOU OUT — A parable! This may be compared to the case of a prince (i. e. a sensitive, refined person) to whom one gives a disgusting thing to eat which he cannot retain on his stomach but vomits it out thus Eretz-Yisrael is unable to retain sinners on its soil (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 14). The Targum renders it by: ולא תרוקן a term for ״emptying out״ — it (the earth) empties itself of them.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of sexual and cultic boundaries. 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 discusses a prohibited family union within a Christian congregation, while Acts 15:20 joins sexual wrongdoing with idol-related concerns. These are later applications in different communities. They should not be treated as translations of each Levitical kinship term or as permission to reenact its ancient penalties.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The land participates in the covenant warning in both versions, but differently. Rabbinic reception elaborates the moral conditions of residence; Christian comparison with judgment and holiness concerns the same ethical seriousness. Expulsion and indignation should remain distinct even where one may lead to the other.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may translate the land's vomiting metaphor through the hostile response it signifies, indignation. This is a plausible change from bodily image to emotional characterization. Where the stated consequence also changes, the translation should preserve that difference rather than assume the two expressions have identical force.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew baʿal can mean husband or master; its construction is difficult and is traditionally interpreted in several ways. Greek has suddenly, exapina. These are materially different restrictions, though the Hebrew legal scope remains disputed. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… among his people, profaning himself.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… among his people, so as to profane himself.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 21:4:1 explains: לא יטמא בעל בעמיו להחלו This means: he shall not defile himself for his wife if she is really unfitted to be his wife (because he is a כהן) and through whom he consequently becomes profaned as a priest, so long as she remains with him (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 15). The following, therefore, is the literal exposition of the verse: לא יטמא בעל, a husband shall not defile himself for his wife's corpse while it is among its people, which means that there are persons who can bury her so that she is not a מת מצוה (cf. Rashi’s explanation of בעמיו on v. 1). […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priesthood and unblemished offering. Hebrews 7:26–28 presents Christ’s priesthood, while 1 Peter 1:18–19 uses the image of an unblemished lamb. These are theological applications of sacrificial language. They must not be used to measure the worth of people with disabilities or to claim a modern medical identification of the ancient conditions.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Priestly mourning restrictions have a specific ritual and family setting. Rabbinic commentary articulates that setting, while Christian reflection on priestly service is a broader comparison. Disputed Hebrew constructions should not be presented as a single uncontested practice against which Greek is automatically judged.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Difficult Hebrew status and grooming expressions permit more than one interpretation. Greek may preserve a different construal or source, especially where its adverb does not match the usual Hebrew noun reading. These uncertainties should remain explicit rather than be resolved through a speculative theory of priestly custom.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The head restriction is loose hair in this Hebrew rendering and removal of the headdress in Greek. Hebrew pāraʿ also has an uncovering interpretation, so the difference should not be treated as a certain contradiction under every Hebrew reading. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… not let his hair hang loose or tear his …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… not remove his headgear or tear his …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 21:10:1 explains: לא יפרע [THE HAIR OF HIS HEAD] SHALL HE NOT DISARRANGE — i.e. he shall not let his hair grow wild on account of ritual mourning for the death of a near relative (Sifra). And what is called "letting the hair grow wild”? Leaving it uncut for more than 30 days (Sanhedrin 22b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priesthood and unblemished offering. Hebrews 7:26–28 presents Christ’s priesthood, while 1 Peter 1:18–19 uses the image of an unblemished lamb. These are theological applications of sacrificial language. They must not be used to measure the worth of people with disabilities or to claim a modern medical identification of the ancient conditions.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Priestly mourning restrictions have a specific ritual and family setting. Rabbinic commentary articulates that setting, while Christian reflection on priestly service is a broader comparison. Disputed Hebrew constructions should not be presented as a single uncontested practice against which Greek is automatically judged.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Difficult Hebrew status and grooming expressions permit more than one interpretation. Greek may preserve a different construal or source, especially where its adverb does not match the usual Hebrew noun reading. These uncertainties should remain explicit rather than be resolved through a speculative theory of priestly custom.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek specifies a cut-off ear where the Hebrew term usually denotes an overlong or disproportionate member. The anatomical criterion differs; the exact Hebrew condition is uncertain. Greek also reverses blind and lame. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… or one with an overgrown limb;”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… or one with a cut-off ear;”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 21:18:1 explains: כי כל איש אשר בו מום לא יקרב FOR ANY MAN THAT HATH A BLEMISH SHALL NOT APPROACH — This means: it is not right that he should approach; It expresses the same idea as (Malachi 1:8) “[And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame or sick, is it not evil?] offer it now unto thy governor! [will he be pleased with thee?]”.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priesthood and unblemished offering. Hebrews 7:26–28 presents Christ’s priesthood, while 1 Peter 1:18–19 uses the image of an unblemished lamb. These are theological applications of sacrificial language. They must not be used to measure the worth of people with disabilities or to claim a modern medical identification of the ancient conditions.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic interpretation defines eligibility or offerings within the sanctuary system, while Christian theology uses unblemished-sacrifice language with its own application. These categories concern ancient ritual rules; they do not measure a person's human worth. The particular anatomical and legal differences remain open to close comparison.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Ancient descriptions of bodily conditions are not stable modern diagnostic labels. Greek may interpret technical Hebrew terms through different visible features, and the offering permission may reflect a distinct legal construal. The resulting differences matter, but require lexical and ritual study rather than a presumption of carelessness.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Several physical criteria differ: Hebrew daq is uncertain, Greek ephēlos concerns a skin mark; the eye terms differ; crushed testicle and single testicle are distinct. These ancient descriptions are not modern diagnoses. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… a hunchback, one who is wasted, one with a …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… a hunchback, one with a skin spot, one with diseased …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 21:20:4 explains: גרב וילפת — These are kinds of boil; גרב is identical with חרס (mentioned in Deuteronomy 28:27) — a boil which is dry both inside and on the surface. ילפת is identical with the Egyptian lichen, (חזזית) (Sifra, Emor, Section 3 15). Why is it called ילפת (root לפת “to embrace")? Because it continues to cling to the body until the day of death. It is wet on the surface and dry inside. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priesthood and unblemished offering. Hebrews 7:26–28 presents Christ’s priesthood, while 1 Peter 1:18–19 uses the image of an unblemished lamb. These are theological applications of sacrificial language. They must not be used to measure the worth of people with disabilities or to claim a modern medical identification of the ancient conditions.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic interpretation defines eligibility or offerings within the sanctuary system, while Christian theology uses unblemished-sacrifice language with its own application. These categories concern ancient ritual rules; they do not measure a person's human worth. The particular anatomical and legal differences remain open to close comparison.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Ancient descriptions of bodily conditions are not stable modern diagnostic labels. Greek may interpret technical Hebrew terms through different visible features, and the offering permission may reflect a distinct legal construal. The resulting differences matter, but require lexical and ritual study rather than a presumption of carelessness.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek specifies a cut tongue where Hebrew has a broader mutilation term. These are different descriptions of disqualifying injury; several skin terms remain uncertain. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… broken, mutilated, has a wart, a scab, …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… blind, crushed, has its tongue cut, has warts, a severe scab, …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 22:22:1 explains: ‎עורת is a noun denoting the blemish of blindness (עִוָּרֹן), being, however, a feminine form of the latter. The text therefore means that there shall not be the defect of blindness in it (in the sacrifice).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priesthood and unblemished offering. Hebrews 7:26–28 presents Christ’s priesthood, while 1 Peter 1:18–19 uses the image of an unblemished lamb. These are theological applications of sacrificial language. They must not be used to measure the worth of people with disabilities or to claim a modern medical identification of the ancient conditions.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic interpretation defines eligibility or offerings within the sanctuary system, while Christian theology uses unblemished-sacrifice language with its own application. These categories concern ancient ritual rules; they do not measure a person's human worth. The particular anatomical and legal differences remain open to close comparison.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Ancient descriptions of bodily conditions are not stable modern diagnostic labels. Greek may interpret technical Hebrew terms through different visible features, and the offering permission may reflect a distinct legal construal. The resulting differences matter, but require lexical and ritual study rather than a presumption of carelessness.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew permits a freewill offering; Greek permits slaughter for oneself. This changes the stated sacrificial permission. The bodily defects also differ: general disproportion versus ear and tail injuries. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… member you may make a freewill offering, but it will …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… tail you may slaughter for yourself, but it will …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 22:23:3 explains: נדבה תעשה אתו THOU MAYEST DESIGNATE IT FOR A FREE-WILL OFFERING for the purpose of repairing the breaches in the Temple from the proceeds of its sale, This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priesthood and unblemished offering. Hebrews 7:26–28 presents Christ’s priesthood, while 1 Peter 1:18–19 uses the image of an unblemished lamb. These are theological applications of sacrificial language. They must not be used to measure the worth of people with disabilities or to claim a modern medical identification of the ancient conditions.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic interpretation defines eligibility or offerings within the sanctuary system, while Christian theology uses unblemished-sacrifice language with its own application. These categories concern ancient ritual rules; they do not measure a person's human worth. The particular anatomical and legal differences remain open to close comparison.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Ancient descriptions of bodily conditions are not stable modern diagnostic labels. Greek may interpret technical Hebrew terms through different visible features, and the offering permission may reflect a distinct legal construal. The resulting differences matter, but require lexical and ritual study rather than a presumption of carelessness.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew says after the Sabbath; Greek says after the first day. This bears directly on the festival calendar. Which day Hebrew Sabbath designates is disputed in reception; the texts should not be harmonized silently. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… the sheaf before YHWH for your acceptance. …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… the sheaf before the Lord, acceptable for you. On …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 23:11:3 explains: ממחרת השבת ON THE MORROW AFTER THE DAY OF REST [THE PRIEST SHALL WAVE IT] — This must mean on the morrow of the first day of the Passover festival (on the 16th of Nisan); for if you say that it means on the morrow of the weekly Sabbath (i. e. on a Sunday) you do not know which particular Sabbath Scripture is referring to (Menachot 66a).

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of festival imagery. 1 Corinthians 15:20–23 calls the risen Christ the firstfruits of those who have died. This gives a Christian theological application to harvest language without resolving every calendar dispute in Leviticus. Plant materials and the day after the Sabbath should first be compared within their own ritual setting.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi understands the day after the festival's first day, allowing practical agreement with Greek despite different words. Christian firstfruits language supplies another reception setting. The comparison should separate the printed expression, its calendar interpretation, and later theological use.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may identify the intended festival day directly where Hebrew uses Sabbath language that later interpreters dispute. This can be an interpretive calendar clarification. The alignment with rabbinic practice is significant, but the later commentary does not prove when or by whom that construal originated.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds branches of the chaste tree, agnos, to the plant list. This changes the stated ritual materials. Hebrew’s splendid-tree fruit is not identified botanically within the verse itself. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… tree, palm fronds, branches of leafy trees, …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… fruit, palm fronds, densely leafed tree branches, willows, and branches of the …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 23:40:1 explains: פרי עץ הדר THE FRUIT OF THE TREE HADAR — a tree the wood of which (עץ) has the same taste as its fruit (פרי) (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 16 4; Sukkah 35a).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical thematic comparison. Revelation 7:9–10 portrays a multitude with palm branches praising God and the Lamb. The shared plant imagery invites comparison with festival celebration, but Revelation does not enumerate Leviticus’ species here. It cannot identify the disputed Hebrew tree term or account for the additional Greek chaste-tree branch.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The festival's plant materials matter in their own right. Rabbinic interpretation identifies the traditionally used species, while Christian palm imagery provides a related but distinct connection. The extra Greek plant should remain visible instead of being absorbed into a familiar four-species formulation.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may preserve a fuller plant list or specify a plant understood within a broader Hebrew category. Neither explanation is established by the English columns. Botanical identification and ritual tradition must both be examined before an added species is treated as either redundant or erroneous.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek expressly assigns the service to Aaron and his sons; Hebrew here names Aaron alone. Greek also omits of the testimony after curtain and uses burn rather than arrange. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “Outside the curtain of the testimony, in the Tent …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “Outside the curtain, in the Tent of …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 24:3:2 explains: יערך אתו אהרן מערב עד בקר AARON SHALL SET IT IN ORDER FROM EVENING UNTO MORNING — The meaning is not that he shall occupy himself the whole night with setting the lights in order, but he shall arrange it in such a manner (lit., by such an arrangement) that will prove adequate for the length of the whole night. Our Rabbis by experiment (cf. Menachot 89a) fixed the quantity at a half log oil for each lamp, ascertaining that this would suffice also in the long nights of the Teveth quarter; and this quantity therefore became to them the fixed measure [for all the seasons of the year].

Christian teaching and understanding Gospel reception of sanctuary practice. Matthew 12:3–7 recalls David’s eating the bread of the Presence and discusses priestly service in a dispute about Sabbath conduct. This directly receives the broader sanctuary setting. It does not decide the added salt or the particular personnel named in the lamp instruction.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The service sustains worship across generations. Rabbinic interpretation clarifies the Hebrew arrangement, while Christian light imagery and ordered-ministry teaching offer further connections. These do not determine which persons this particular verse explicitly names or make arranging and burning the same verb.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may include Aaron's sons because priestly continuity is implicit in the surrounding legislation. It also expresses maintenance of the lamp through its burning. Such functional clarification is plausible, but the additional participants and omitted qualifier should still be recorded separately.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds salt as an explicit material and describes setting before the Lord rather than an offering by fire. The additional ingredient changes the stated ritual instruction. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… portion for the bread, an offering by fire to YHWH.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… memorial for the loaves.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 24:7:3 explains: ללחם לאזכרה ON THE BREAD FOR A MEMORIAL — because of the bread itself nothing was offered to the Lord, but the frankincense was burnt when the former was removed from the golden table every Sabbath. It (the frankincense) thus served as a memorial for the bread, because through it, it (the bread) was recalled to memory Above (the bread itself was not offered) just as the “handful” of flour and of oil (Leviticus 2:2) was “the memorial portion” of the meal offering being the only part offered, while the remainder was eaten by the priests just as this bread was.

Christian teaching and understanding Gospel reception of sanctuary practice. Matthew 12:3–7 recalls David’s eating the bread of the Presence and discusses priestly service in a dispute about Sabbath conduct. This directly receives the broader sanctuary setting. It does not decide the added salt or the particular personnel named in the lamp instruction.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic interpretation explains the bread and incense arrangement; Christian reception can relate it to Jesus' discussion of the bread of the Presence. That connection does not settle the added ingredient. Salt must remain identified as explicit in Greek rather than silently supplied to Hebrew.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The salt requirement may align the bread offering with the general rule concerning salt in Leviticus 2:13. This is a plausible internal coordination, alongside a fuller source. The altered presentation phrase requires separate attention and should not be explained away merely because both versions describe worship.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek says naming the name, while Hebrew nāqab is commonly understood as blaspheming in this context and can also mean naming explicitly. This affects the law’s apparent scope; verses 11 and 15 connect it with cursing, so Greek must not be presented as unambiguously criminalizing every reverent utterance.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 24:16:1 explains: ונקב שם AND HE THAT UTTERETH BLASPHEMOUSLY THE NAME [OF THE LORD SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — He is not liable to the death-penalty at the hand of the judges unless he utters the Divine Tetragrammaton blasphemously, but not if he execrateth the Lord by only mention of one of the substitutes for the Divine name (e. g., רחום, חנון, אל etc.), (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 5; Sanhedrin 56a).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. Matthew 6:9 teaches prayer for God’s name to be hallowed, and James 3:9–10 exposes the inconsistency of blessing God while cursing people. These provide Christian reflections on reverent speech. They are not direct interpretations of the naming/blaspheming verb or the ancient penalty in this verse.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The narrative and preceding law concern misuse of the divine name. Rabbinic interpretation defines the offense carefully, while Christian teaching about hallowing God's name offers a related concern. Naming language must be read in context before contrasting the traditions' treatment of reverent speech.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The Hebrew verb can carry the sense of naming explicitly or, in this context, blaspheming. Greek may render that lexical surface while relying on the surrounding cursing episode to specify the offense. This makes contextual interpretation more plausible than a claim that Greek criminalizes every reverent utterance.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek expressly says sold himself, shifting to personal sale within a context where Hebrew concerns sold property. The wording is retained even though the surrounding land context creates tension. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… calculate the years since his sale and …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… calculate the years of his sale and …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 25:27:1 explains: וחשב את שני ממכרו THEN LET HIM RECKON THE YEARS OF THE SALE THEREOF — [let him reckon thus:] How many years were there until the Jubilee? So-and-so many! At what price did I sell it to you? At such-and-such a price! Now in the Jubilee year you would have to restore it to me; it follows therefore that you have actually bought a number of crops only (and not the land itself) at a certain sum for every year. You have eaten it (used it) three or four years; deduct therefore their value from the sum total of the purchase money and you take the remainder. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian canonical comparison concerning release. Luke 4:16–21 presents Jesus reading Isaiah’s proclamation of liberty and the Lord’s favorable year. The connection with Jubilee is a theological and intertextual comparison, not an explicit citation of every rule in Leviticus 25. It cannot correct the selected Greek’s unusual sixth-year wording or resolve its sale pronoun.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The Hebrew context concerns recovery of property, whereas the Greek phrase explicitly introduces self-sale. Rabbinic explanation and Christian release imagery address the broader relation of debt and restoration. Neither removes the local tension between the land setting and the Greek's personal object.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret a compact sale expression as personal sale, perhaps under the influence of nearby debt-servitude laws. A different source phrase is possible. The surrounding property context remains a real difficulty and should not be erased by rewriting the pronoun or object.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The Rahlfs–Hanhart main text explicitly has sixth year of release, unlike Hebrew year of Jubilee. This anomalous chronology is confirmed in the selected RH main text; its wider witness history requires apparatus review, and it is not silently corrected to fiftieth or Jubilee.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 25:28:2 explains: עד שנת היובל UNTIL THE YEAR OF JUBILEE — “until” but not “including” the year of the Jubilee; it means that nothing of time shall have entered into that year (that not one moment of that year shall have passed), because the Jubilee effects the release of such property at its very beginning (in contrast to the cancelling of debts in the “Shemittah” which takes place only at the end of the year; cf. Deuteronomy 15:1 ff.) (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 6; Arakhin 28b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian canonical comparison concerning release. Luke 4:16–21 presents Jesus reading Isaiah’s proclamation of liberty and the Lord’s favorable year. The connection with Jubilee is a theological and intertextual comparison, not an explicit citation of every rule in Leviticus 25. It cannot correct the selected Greek’s unusual sixth-year wording or resolve its sale pronoun.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Jubilee and shorter release cycles are related institutions but not interchangeable dates. Rabbinic explanation follows the Hebrew Jubilee context; Christian release theology is a wider application. The unusual Greek number should remain visible with its edition identified rather than be smoothed into an expected calendar.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The selected Greek's sixth-year expression may reflect interaction with another release cycle or an inherited anomalous reading. These are research hypotheses, not demonstrated causes. Because the critical witness history has not been collated here, neither correction to fiftieth nor attribution to negligence is justified.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew dwelling, mishkān, is Greek covenant, diathēkē. The object of the promise changes substantially, although both retain the promise of divine presence in verse 12. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… will place My dwelling among you, and …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… will place My covenant among you, and …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 26:11:1 explains: ונתתי משכני AND I WILL SET MY DWELLING [AMONGST YOU] — This means the Temple at Jerusalem (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 3 2; Eruvin 2a). This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of divine presence and covenant. 2 Corinthians 6:16–18 invokes God’s dwelling and walking among His people, directly engaging the promise context. Christian reception therefore gives this chapter an important communal application. That use should not replace its differing curse details, ancient disease terms, or the Greek covenant noun with a harmonized wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The promise joins divine presence and enduring relationship. Paul's use of dwelling language in 2 Corinthians 6:16 supplies a direct Christian reception context. Rabbinic explanation retains the sanctuary dimension, while the Greek covenant noun broadens the immediate wording without eliminating presence from the next verse.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may express the covenantal significance of God's dwelling through the word covenant, or preserve a distinct source term. Both readings fit the presence promise that follows. That coherence makes the variant intelligible, but does not establish which noun originally stood in the passage.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The named afflictions differ: Hebrew wasting disease and fever versus Greek scab and jaundice. These are ancient disease descriptions, not assured modern diagnoses. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… you: I will appoint terror over you, wasting disease …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… you: I will bring distress upon you, scab and …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 26:16:3 explains: קדחת is a disease which inflames the body, makes it hot and burning (feverish). It is similar in meaning to the verb in, (Deuteronomy 32:22) “For a fire burns (קדחה) in My nostril”.

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of divine presence and covenant. 2 Corinthians 6:16–18 invokes God’s dwelling and walking among His people, directly engaging the promise context. Christian reception therefore gives this chapter an important communal application. That use should not replace its differing curse details, ancient disease terms, or the Greek covenant noun with a harmonized wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The covenant warning describes bodily suffering, but the named conditions differ. Rabbinic interpretation supplies traditional understandings; Christian reflection on judgment must not turn them into a medical guide. The analysis concerns ancient descriptions, not proof that a present illness is divine punishment.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Ancient disease terms may have been identified through familiar conditions in the receiving language. Such lexical interpretation is plausible, but the English medical labels are themselves approximate. A source difference remains possible, and no retrospective diagnosis follows reliably from the comparison.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew rule over becomes Greek pursue. Subjugation and pursuit are substantively different consequences, though both belong to military defeat. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… and you shall be struck down before your enemies. …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… and you shall fall before your enemies. …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 26:17:2 explains: ורדו בכם שנאיכם — These words mean exactly what they imply: THEY THAT HATE YOU SHALL RULE OVER YOU. — The Agadic explanation of the Torat Cohanim (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 4 1-5) on this section is as follows:

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of divine presence and covenant. 2 Corinthians 6:16–18 invokes God’s dwelling and walking among His people, directly engaging the promise context. Christian reception therefore gives this chapter an important communal application. That use should not replace its differing curse details, ancient disease terms, or the Greek covenant noun with a harmonized wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The warning concerns defeat and displacement in both traditions, with different degrees or kinds of explicit consequence. Rabbinic interpretation develops the covenant setting, while Christian warnings concerning unfaithfulness provide a later comparison. Neither justifies weakening the Greek destruction language or importing it into Hebrew.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may state an intensified or resulting consequence where Hebrew names pursuit, rule, or transfer into enemy territory. Contextual interpretation of the curse sequence is plausible, alongside source variation. Each verb still deserves separate attention because progression toward destruction is not identical to every preceding action.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The condemned cult objects differ: high places and incense altars versus pillars and wooden objects. Carcasses becomes limbs, changing the imagery of the threatened destruction. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars, and put your …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… pillars, destroy your wooden handmade objects, and put your …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 26:30:1 explains: במתיכם YOUR HIGH PLACES — towers and castles. This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of divine presence and covenant. 2 Corinthians 6:16–18 invokes God’s dwelling and walking among His people, directly engaging the promise context. Christian reception therefore gives this chapter an important communal application. That use should not replace its differing curse details, ancient disease terms, or the Greek covenant noun with a harmonized wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The passage condemns illicit worship and its objects. Rabbinic explanation identifies the Hebrew terms, while Christian warnings against idols provide a thematic connection. Shared rejection of idolatry does not make pillars, high places, wooden objects, and incense altars identical material items.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Unfamiliar cult objects may have been identified by familiar Greek categories, producing different lists of condemned structures. The bodily language may likewise concretize destruction differently. These lexical explanations are plausible but should not be mistaken for a recovered inventory of one historical sanctuary.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew threatens a drawn sword pursuing them; Greek explicitly says the sword will consume them. Greek intensifies the expressed outcome of the threat. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… your cities shall become a ruin.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… your cities shall be desolate.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 26:33:2 explains: והריקתי — (lit., I shall empty out) — This term may be used for drawing the sword because when one draws the sword the scabbard becomes empty (cf. Rashi on Ex 15:9). A Midrashic explanation (referring the word והריקתי to the sword itself not to the scabbard) is the sword once drawn to pursue you will not soon return unto the scabbard — as a man pours out water and it can never return to the vessel that once contained it (i. e. I will, as it were, empty out the scabbard — pour forth the sword from it, and it shall never return, but always follow you) (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 6 7).

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of divine presence and covenant. 2 Corinthians 6:16–18 invokes God’s dwelling and walking among His people, directly engaging the promise context. Christian reception therefore gives this chapter an important communal application. That use should not replace its differing curse details, ancient disease terms, or the Greek covenant noun with a harmonized wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The warning concerns defeat and displacement in both traditions, with different degrees or kinds of explicit consequence. Rabbinic interpretation develops the covenant setting, while Christian warnings concerning unfaithfulness provide a later comparison. Neither justifies weakening the Greek destruction language or importing it into Hebrew.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may state an intensified or resulting consequence where Hebrew names pursuit, rule, or transfer into enemy territory. Contextual interpretation of the curse sequence is plausible, alongside source variation. Each verb still deserves separate attention because progression toward destruction is not identical to every preceding action.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew stumbling over one another becomes Greek disregarding one another. Physical panic changes to a breakdown in mutual regard or assistance. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… pursues. You shall have no standing before your enemies.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… them. You shall not be able to withstand your enemies.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 26:37:1 explains: וכשלו איש באחיו AND THEY SHALL STUMBLE ONE UPON ANOTHER — When they are running in order to escape they will stumble one against the other because they will be in a hurry to run away.

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of divine presence and covenant. 2 Corinthians 6:16–18 invokes God’s dwelling and walking among His people, directly engaging the promise context. Christian reception therefore gives this chapter an important communal application. That use should not replace its differing curse details, ancient disease terms, or the Greek covenant noun with a harmonized wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Panic and broken solidarity can accompany the same disaster, but they remain different descriptions. Rabbinic interpretation and Christian calls to mutual care illuminate the relation between individual and communal vulnerability. Such application should follow, rather than replace, the literal contrast.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret collapse within a fleeing group as failure to regard or assist one another. That converts a bodily scene into a social description. A different underlying word is possible; the evidence does not establish whether the shift was a deliberate moral exposition.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek has your sins instead of their guilt and lacks the clause about wasting away in the fathers’ guilt. Verse 40 still mentions ancestral sins in both texts. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… in their enemies’ lands; also in the guilt of their fathers they shall waste away with them.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… in their enemies’ land.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 26:39:1 explains: בעונת אבתם אתם means if the iniquities of their fathers shall be with them, i. e. if they hold fast to (imitate) the doings of their fathers (cf. Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 8 2; Sanhedrin 27b).

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of divine presence and covenant. 2 Corinthians 6:16–18 invokes God’s dwelling and walking among His people, directly engaging the promise context. Christian reception therefore gives this chapter an important communal application. That use should not replace its differing curse details, ancient disease terms, or the Greek covenant noun with a harmonized wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Responsibility extends through a community's history, but the wording does not distribute it identically. Rabbinic explanation and Christian teaching about repentance can be compared with attention to persons and generations. Verse 40 prevents treating the Greek omission here as a complete absence of ancestral reference.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may shorten the repeated ancestral-guilt formulation while retaining it in the following verse. Its shift of person also draws the audience directly into the warning. A shorter source remains possible; the local omission should not be treated as rejection of ancestral consequences throughout the passage.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew bring them into the enemies’ land becomes Greek destroy them there. This materially changes God’s stated action. Greek also uses a past walked, adds anger, and expresses shame rather than humbling. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “I too will walk contrary to …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “I too walked with them in contrary anger, and I will destroy them …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 26:41:1 explains: והבאתי אתם AND I SHALL BRING THEM [INTO THE LAND OF THEIR ENEMIES] — I Myself shall bring them; this is a kindly measure for Israel in order that they should not say, “Since we are banished among the nations let us do like their doings”. “For”, says God “I will not suffer them to do this, but I will raise up My prophets and so bring them back under My wings, as it is said, (Ezekiel 20:30) “And that which cometh into your mind shall not be at all, — [that ye say, We will be as the heathens, as the families of the countries, to serve wood and stone]. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of divine presence and covenant. 2 Corinthians 6:16–18 invokes God’s dwelling and walking among His people, directly engaging the promise context. Christian reception therefore gives this chapter an important communal application. That use should not replace its differing curse details, ancient disease terms, or the Greek covenant noun with a harmonized wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The warning concerns defeat and displacement in both traditions, with different degrees or kinds of explicit consequence. Rabbinic interpretation develops the covenant setting, while Christian warnings concerning unfaithfulness provide a later comparison. Neither justifies weakening the Greek destruction language or importing it into Hebrew.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may state an intensified or resulting consequence where Hebrew names pursuit, rule, or transfer into enemy territory. Contextual interpretation of the curse sequence is plausible, alongside source variation. Each verb still deserves separate attention because progression toward destruction is not identical to every preceding action.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew refers to persons generally; Greek expressly identifies his own person. This changes the expressed scope of the vow, though the subsequent valuation schedule includes both sexes and several ages. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… a special vow concerning persons to YHWH according …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… vows a vow for the valuation of his own person to the Lord,”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 27:2:2 explains: בערכך נפשות — he expressly states that he will give to the Sanctuary the valuation attached to a life by saying, “the payment of the valuation of such and such a thing — that, however, being something upon which its life depends — is incumbent upon me” (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 3 6; Arakhin 4a).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical comparison concerning dedicated gifts. Acts 5:1–4 distinguishes voluntary possession from deception about a declared gift, while Matthew 5:33–37 addresses trustworthy speech. These supply Christian contexts for integrity in vows and offerings. They do not define the ancient valuation schedule or solve its different temporal and exchange clauses.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Vowed valuations concern obligations expressed through persons and their assessed equivalents. Rabbinic interpretation clarifies that legal mechanism, while Christian teaching on promises provides a thematic connection. The Greek's specific self-reference must be distinguished from a claim that every later case concerns only the speaker.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may resolve a general persons formula toward the vow-maker's own person. This is a plausible clarification of the immediate example, while the subsequent valuation schedule remains broader. A different source is also possible, and the local wording should not be turned into the whole law's exclusive scope.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew locates the transfer when the field goes out at Jubilee; Greek says when the release has gone out or passed. The temporal formulation is confirmed in the selected RH main text; its wider witness history requires apparatus review, and Greek also uses set-apart language for devoted land.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 27:21:1 explains: והיה השדה בצאתו ביבל BUT THE FIELD, WHEN IT GOETH OUT IN THE JUBILEE from the possession of him who purchased it from the treasurer, just as is the way with other fields in the Jubilee which also go out from the possession of those who purchase them, SHALL BE

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical comparison concerning dedicated gifts. Acts 5:1–4 distinguishes voluntary possession from deception about a declared gift, while Matthew 5:33–37 addresses trustworthy speech. These supply Christian contexts for integrity in vows and offerings. They do not define the ancient valuation schedule or solve its different temporal and exchange clauses.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The timing affects valuation and transfer of a field. Rabbinic interpretation follows the Hebrew release system, while Christian reflections on stewardship provide only a broader application. The direction of the time calculation must remain explicit before any attempt is made to reconcile the procedures.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may construe the temporal prepositions and release expression differently, changing whether the cycle is an endpoint, starting point, or elapsed event. A variant source is possible. The resulting difficulty calls for witness comparison and cannot be resolved merely by replacing the Greek with an expected Jubilee rule.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew until the Jubilee becomes Greek from the year of release. This changes the expressed point from which the assessment is calculated. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… for him the amount of the valuation until the …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… for him the total valuation from the …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 27:18:2 explains: וחשב לו הכהן את הכסף על פי השנים הנותרת THEN THE PRIEST SHALL RECKON FOR HIM THE MONEY ACCORDING TO THE YEARS THAT ARE LEFT — it must be according to a reckoning. How is it to be done? You see, it (Scripture) has fixed the value of forty-nine years at fifty shekels, that is, one shekel for each year and one additional shekel for all of them (for all the years together). Now a shekel is forty-eight pundion; that gives one selah (shekel) and one pundion for each year, except that there is one pundion short for all the years (reckoning the price per year as the Torah prescribes, he pays forty-nine shekels and forty-nine pundion, equal to fifty shekels and one pundion whereas really he should pay fifty shekels, which is one pundion less than the calculation based […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical comparison concerning dedicated gifts. Acts 5:1–4 distinguishes voluntary possession from deception about a declared gift, while Matthew 5:33–37 addresses trustworthy speech. These supply Christian contexts for integrity in vows and offerings. They do not define the ancient valuation schedule or solve its different temporal and exchange clauses.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The timing affects valuation and transfer of a field. Rabbinic interpretation follows the Hebrew release system, while Christian reflections on stewardship provide only a broader application. The direction of the time calculation must remain explicit before any attempt is made to reconcile the procedures.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may construe the temporal prepositions and release expression differently, changing whether the cycle is an endpoint, starting point, or elapsed event. A variant source is possible. The resulting difficulty calls for witness comparison and cannot be resolved merely by replacing the Greek with an expected Jubilee rule.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek lacks Hebrew’s prohibition on selecting by quality and states only good-for-bad exchange explicitly. Hebrew prohibits exchange generally. Greek also leaves the original animal’s holiness implicit while adding the substitute. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “He shall not examine whether it is good or bad, and he shall not exchange …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “You shall not exchange …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Leviticus 27:33:1 explains: לא ‎'יבקר וגו‎ HE SHALL NOT SEEK OUT, [WHETHER IT BE GOOD OR BAD — Since it is stated, (.Deut 12:11) “[thither shall ye bring…] all your choice vows” I might think he shall select and take out the choicest! Scripture therefore states here, “he shall not seek out whether it be good or bad” —whether it be perfect in limb or whether it have a blemish the sanctity attached to the tithe applies to it; […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical comparison concerning dedicated gifts. Acts 5:1–4 distinguishes voluntary possession from deception about a declared gift, while Matthew 5:33–37 addresses trustworthy speech. These supply Christian contexts for integrity in vows and offerings. They do not define the ancient valuation schedule or solve its different temporal and exchange clauses.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The law protects the integrity of a dedicated portion. Rabbinic interpretation examines selection and substitution, while Christian teaching about honest offerings provides an ethical parallel. The common concern for faithful giving does not make the two formulations equally explicit about every prohibited exchange.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may abbreviate a rule by expressing one prohibited exchange and leaving the original animal's status implicit. A shorter source is another possibility. Such economy should not be assumed harmless: the Hebrew's explicit selection restriction and broader exchange language remain additional legal information.