Black or Yellow Hair: A Scribe Miscopied the Laws of Tzaraat

Learning on Shabbat With My Son Omri

I came across the “error” below when I was learning Chumash with my younger son Omri one Shabbat, and we got to Leviticus 13:31 and I tried to explain it and it made no sense to me. So I said, “Wait, let me check the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Greek Septuagint (LXX).” The SP was the same as the Masoretic Text, but when I got to the LXX, I was so excited I said, “Look at this!” showing him a Greek text he cannot read.

Omri was not overly enthusiastic, but I was: “This is so cool!” I said, “there's an article right there.” “You’re going to write an article on this?” he asked. “Definitely.” I answered. Then my son took a good hard look at me and asked, “So this is what you... do, Abba? Like this is being a Bible scholar? You look for typos in the Torah and then write about them?"

The combination of the prideful “so now I get what my dad does!” and contempt “I can't believe this is what my dad does!” were enough to make me laugh out loud, and I answered, “So this is not the entirety of what I do. Consider this the fun part.”

The Process of Diagnosing Tzaraʿat

The laws of tzaraʿat, a blanket term for various types of skin disease on people (as well as mold on clothing or houses) follow a certain formula. In each case, the text lays out:

#1. What the specific type of tzaraʿat is called.
#2. If the hair is discolored.
#3. Whether the infection looks deep.

If the infection is not accompanied by the latter two signs,

#4. The priest is required to quarantine the person for a week and then check to see if it is spreading.

This pattern is followed three times with human skin diseases:

Swelling, scab, or shiny-spot—The first case of tzaraʿat opens with:

^{ויקרא יג:ב} אָדָם כִּי יִהְיֶה בְעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ שְׂאֵת אוֹ סַפַּחַת אוֹ בַהֶרֶת וְהָיָה בְעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ לְנֶגַע צָרָעַת וְהוּבָא אֶל אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אוֹ אֶל אַחַד מִבָּנָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים. ^יג:ג וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנֶּגַע בְּעוֹר הַבָּשָׂר וְשֵׂעָר בַּנֶּגַע הָפַךְ לָבָן וּמַרְאֵה הַנֶּגַע עָמֹק מֵעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ נֶגַע צָרַעַת הוּא וְרָאָהוּ הַכֹּהֵן וְטִמֵּא אֹתוֹ.

^{Lev 13:2} [Any] human being—when there is on the skin of his body a swelling or a scab or a shiny-spot (#1) and it becomes on the skin of his body an affliction of tzaraʿat, he is to be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests. ^13:3 The priest is to look at the affliction on the skin of the flesh; should hair in the afflicted-area have turned white (#2), and the look of the affliction is deeper than the skin of his flesh (#3), it is an affliction of tzaraʿat; the priest is to look at it, and is to declare-him-tamei (=impure).^[1]

The discoloration of the body hair, from a standard black or brown to white, is a sign of the disease.

The law then moves to the ambiguous case, in which the hair is not discolored and the affliction does not appear deep, signs that the person may not have contracted the disease:

^{ויקרא יג:ד} וְאִם בַּהֶרֶת לְבָנָה הִוא בְּעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ וְעָמֹק אֵין מַרְאֶהָ מִן הָעוֹר וּשְׂעָרָה לֹא הָפַךְ לָבָן וְהִסְגִּיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנֶּגַע שִׁבְעַת יָמִים.

^{Lev 13:4} Now if it is a white spot on the skin of his flesh, and deeper its look is not than the skin, and the hair has not turned white, the priest is to shut up the afflicted-one for seven days (#4).

Healed Boils—We see the same pattern for boils:

^{ויקרא יג:יח} בָשָׂר כִּי יִהְיֶה בוֹ בְעֹרוֹ שְׁחִין וְנִרְפָּא. ^יג:יט וְהָיָה בִּמְקוֹם הַשְּׁחִין שְׂאֵת לְבָנָה אוֹ בַהֶרֶת לְבָנָה אֲדַמְדָּמֶת וְנִרְאָה אֶל הַכֹּהֵן. ^יג:כ וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה מַרְאֶהָ שָׁפָל מִן הָעוֹר וּשְׂעָרָהּ הָפַךְ לָבָן וְטִמְּאוֹ הַכֹּהֵן נֶגַע צָרַעַת הִוא בַּשְּׁחִין פָּרָחָה.

^{Lev 13:18} Now flesh—when there is in its skin a boil, and it heals, ^13:19 but there is in place of the boil a white swelling or a white [and] reddish shiny-spot (#1): he is to have the priest look at him. ^13:20 The priest is to look, and here, should its look be lower than the skin (#3), and its hair has turned white (#2), the priest is to declare-him-tamei; it is an affliction of tzaraʿat, in the boil it has sprouted.

And again, the hair maintaining its natural color is one of the signs that the person may not have contracted the illness, and is thus only quarantined for a week:

^{ויקרא יג:כא} וְאִם יִרְאֶנָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה אֵין בָּהּ שֵׂעָר לָבָן וּשְׁפָלָה אֵינֶנָּה מִן הָעוֹר וְהִיא כֵהָה וְהִסְגִּירוֹ הַכֹּהֵן שִׁבְעַת יָמִים.

^{Lev 13:21} But if the priest looks at it, and here, there is not in it any white hair, and it is not lower than the skin (#4), but it has faded, the priest is to shut him up for seven days.

Scall in the hair or beard—When we get to the scall, a scaly/scabby infection found inside the hair of the head or the beard, the rule inexplicably changes. It begins the way the other rules do, by categorizing discoloration of hair as a sign of tzaraʿat, though in this case, yellow^[2] as opposed to white:

^{ויקרא יג:כט} וְאִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יִהְיֶה בוֹ נָגַע בְּרֹאשׁ אוֹ בְזָקָן. ^יג:ל וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנֶּגַע וְהִנֵּה מַרְאֵהוּ עָמֹק מִן הָעוֹר וּבוֹ שֵׂעָר צָהֹב דָּק וְטִמֵּא אֹתוֹ הַכֹּהֵן נֶתֶק הוּא צָרַעַת הָרֹאשׁ אוֹ הַזָּקָן הוּא.

^{Lev 13:29} Now a man or a woman—when they have an affliction on the head or on the [site of the] beard (#1): ^13:30 And the priest looks at the affliction, and here, its look is deeper than the skin (#3), and in it there is thin yellow hair (#2), the priest is to declare-him-tamei—it is a scall, it is tzaraʿat of the head or of the beard.

Like the other cases, the law next moves to the more ambiguous presentation of the symptoms, in which the priest is unsure and puts the person in quarantine for a week, but here with the symptoms concerning the hair seems counter-intuitive:

^{ויקרא יג:לא} וְכִי יִרְאֶה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת נֶגַע הַנֶּתֶק וְהִנֵּה אֵין מַרְאֵהוּ עָמֹק מִן הָעוֹר וְשֵׂעָר שָׁחֹר אֵין בּוֹ וְהִסְגִּיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת נֶגַע הַנֶּתֶק שִׁבְעַת יָמִים.

^{Lev 13:31} But when the priest looks at the affliction of the scall, and here, its look is not deeper than the skin, and black hair there is none on it (#4), the priest is to shut up the one afflicted with the scall for seven days.

We would have expected it to say ושער צהב אין בו “and yellow hair there is none on it,” to parallel the previous two cases, in which the lack of white hair was one of the reasons for the priest to quarantine the person rather than declaring them impure.

Black Hair Is a Sign of Purity: Traditional Answer

Rabbinic interpreters were already sensitive to this problem. The Sifra, for instance, suggests that black hair, as opposed to blond—a natural form of yellow hair—is a special case:

^{ספרא דִּבּוּרָא דְנְגָעִים פֶּרֶק ח:ה} "שָׁחֹר" – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שָׁחֹר, וּמְנַיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיָּרֹק וְאֶת הָאָדֹם? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְשֵׂעָר". אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר "שָׁחֹר"? הַשָּׁחֹר מַצִּיל, וְהַצָּהֹב אֵינוֹ מַצִּיל.

^{Sifra Negaim 8:5} “Black”—I only know that black hair [is a sign that the person may not have the affliction], who do we know this is the case for green or red? The text teaches “and hair” [of any color]. If so, why does it say “black” [specifically]? Black automatically saves a person [even from quarantine], but yellow (=natural blond) doesn’t save a person [from quarantine].

A more contextually plausible version of this reading was suggested by Rashi (R. Solomon Yitzhaki, ca. 1040–1105), who points to a later verse which mentions the regrowth of black hair as a sign that the person has healed from the disease:

^{ויקרא יג:לז} וְאִם בְּעֵינָיו עָמַד הַנֶּתֶק וְשֵׂעָר שָׁחֹר צָמַח בּוֹ נִרְפָּא הַנֶּתֶק טָהוֹר הוּא וְטִהֲרוֹ הַכֹּהֵן.

^{Lev 13:37} Now if in his eyes the scall is at-a-standstill, and black hair has sprouted in it, the scall has healed, he is pure, and the priest is to declare-him-pure.

Thus, Rashi argues, the very existence of black hair in scall would be enough for the priest to declare the person totally pure:

^{רש"י ויקרא יג:לא} הא אם היה בו שער שחור, טהור, ואינו צריך להסגיר, שהשער שחור סימן טהרה הוא בנתקים...

^{Rashi Lev 13:31} And if there was any black hair in it, it is pure, and he would not need to quarantine the person, for black hair is a sign of purity in skin disease…

This interpretation, however, does not explain why the text does not follow the contours of the previous two rules. Why is hair in its natural color an automatic sign of purity here, but in the first two cases it leads to quarantine?

Suddenly Black Again?

Even more confusing is what happens when the priest looks at the illness again in a week to see if it spread, step #5:

^{ויקרא יג:לב} וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנֶּגַע בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְהִנֵּה לֹא פָשָׂה הַנֶּתֶק וְלֹא הָיָה בוֹ שֵׂעָר צָהֹב וּמַרְאֵה הַנֶּתֶק אֵין עָמֹק מִן הָעוֹר.

^{Lev 13:32} Then the priest is to look at the affliction on the seventh day, and here, should the scall not have spread, and there is not in it [any] yellow hair, and the look of the scall is not deeper than the skin.

The week before there was no black hair, only yellow; now there is no yellow hair. Are we to imagine the hair changing color from yellow back to black?

No Hair There At All: Abravanel

To make sense of this apparently flip-floppy rule, Don Isaac Abravanel (1437–1508) suggests that “no black hair” means there is no hair at all on the scall, but in order to declare a scall impure, it needs to be both deeper than the skin and have yellow hair. To explain why, Abravanel first lays out how he understands the science of yellow hair based on the standard medieval conception of hair coloring, as being based on humors in the body.^[3] In line with this, Abravanel explains the discolored yellow hair as deriving from the blood being stale, and thus not contributing color to the hair follicles:

^{אברבנאל ויקרא יג:ל–לג} והנתק יחדש שער צהוב ולא שחור לפי שהוא מיתרון אדומה או הדם המעופש ומראה הנתק לבן ומרחוק נראה עמוק משאר העור כשהוא מגולח (את) [אז?] יצמח בשרשי השערות.

^{Abravanel Lev 13:30–33} Now a scall will grow yellow hair, and not black hair, because it derives from the extra redness or stale blood, and the scall itself looks white and from afar it appears deeper than the skin when it is shaved, then it will grow in the hair follicles.

וזכר הכתוב בו שני תנאים אלו רוצה לומר שמראהו עמוק מן העור ושבו שער צהוב דק רוצה לומר קצר שבסבת העפוש לא יעלה אד עשני להיות השער. ובהמצאם יחד צוה שיטמאנו הכהן.

And scripture lists these two conditions, meaning, that it appears deeper than the skin, and that it has thin yellow hair, meaning it is short since, on account of the staleness, the smokey vapors do not turn into hair. And when both of these conditions are met, [the Torah] commands the priest to declare the person impure.

When there is no hair at all in the scall, however, we cannot fully test whether the person’s blood has gone stale in that spot:

אבל אם לא נמצאו שם שני האותות או אחד מהם כי אין עמוק מראהו מן העור ושער שחור אין בו לצהוב. הנה אז יסגירנו הכהן ז' ימים.

But if these two conditions are not met, or just one of them, for the appearance is not deeper than the skin, and black hair is not found there in order to turn yellow, then the priest is to quarantine the person for seven days.

ואם ביום הז' מצא שפשה הנגע ולא נתהווה בו שער צהוב ומראהו אין עמוק מן העור הנה צריך שיעשה הכהן עוד בחינה שנית.

And if, on the seventh day, he finds that the scall has spread, but (still) no yellow hair has grown upon it and it doesn’t appear deeper than the skin, then the priest needs to quarantine the person again.

This reading deals with the contradiction, but is not satisfactory either: had the Torah meant to say what Abravanel is envisioning, it would have just said ושער אין בו “there is no hair there.” Moreover, why is there a clause about a hairless spot only with the infection in the hair or beard, and not in the cases about body infections, where hairlessness would be more common? On the flip side, why drop the usual case (#4) here about the lack of discolored hair?

A Scribal Error: Keil, Delitzsch, and the LXX

In their commentary on Hebrew Bible, Carl Friedrich Keil (1807–1888) and Franz Delitzsch (1813–1890) noted that the text must be corrupt:

In ‏שָׁחֹר אֵין בּוֹ‎ (v. 31) there is certainly an error of the text: either ‏שׁחר‎ must be retained and ‏אין‎ dropped, or ‏שָׁחֹר‎ must be altered into ‏צָהֹב, according to v. 37. The latter is probably the better of the two.^[4]

In other words, they argue, the original Hebrew was either ושער שחר בו “black hair was in it” or ושער צהב אין בו “and no yellow hair was in it.” Either way, the point of the verse, as in the previous examples, must be that the scall is missing discolored hair, thus calling into question when the person has indeed contracted the infection. Keil and Delitzsch opt for the latter phrasing, ostensibly because it parallels what was found in the previous examples with white hair.

This reconstruction follows the Septuagint (LXX) text, which reads “and there is no yellow hair in it,” (καὶ θρὶξ ξανθίζουσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῇ), implying that ושער צהוב אין בו was its Hebrew Vorlage (original).

Other scholars are reticent to accept the LXX reading over that of MT. R. David Zvi Hoffmann (1843–1921), for instance, responds to Keil and the LXX by arguing that this is a corrected text and an error:

^{ר' דוד צבי הופמן ויקרא יג:לא} קנובל וקייל משערים, כי "שער שחור" שנאמר בפסוק זה היא "טעות סופר" במקום שער צהוב (השוה השבעים), שהרי זה תנאי עיקרי שלא יימצא בו שער צהוב, כי אילו היה נמצא בו שער צהוב, היו מטמאין אותו מיד. אולם זו היא טעות....

^{Hoffmann Lev 13:31} [August] Knobel^[5] and [Carl F.] Keil assume that the “black hair” mentioned in this verse is a scribal error in place of “yellow hair” (compare LXX), for it is a necessary condition not to find yellow hair in it, for if yellow hair would be found in it, they would have declared him impure immediately. But this itself is an error....

כי נתק שונה משאר נגעים בזה, שבו יש גם סימן טהרה, ואם הסימן הזה נראה בו, אין משפיעים לרעה אפילו כל סימני טומאה יחד. וסימן הטהרה הוא השער השחור, מה שיוצא בבירור מתוך פסוק לז. ולכן יש הכרה לקבוע כאן, שההסגר יבוא רק אם אין שער שחור כאן; ואם נמצא סימן זה, יכול הכהן לטהר אותו מיד ואין צורך בהסגר.

For a scall is different than other skin infections, for it also has signs of purity, and if this sign is found upon it, even every other sign is not enough to determine the person has contracted the illness. And the sign of purity is black hair, which is clear from verse 37. Therefore, it seems clear that we must posit here that the quarantine is to take place only if there is no black hair at all, and if this sign is found here, the priest can declare the person pure immediately and there is no need for quarantine.

Hoffmann of course, was a traditionalist scholar who was not comfortable with discounting a Masoretic reading. It is thus not surprising that he supports Rashi’s understanding, defending it as the simple meaning, and explaining the difference between scall and the previous cases by positing that scall is something special. Even so, many critical scholars have also been wary of adopting the LXX reading. Thus, Jacob Milgrom, though discussing the possibility of the LXX reading, prefers that of MT based on the same verse Rashi and Hoffmann reference, and offers a reading akin to that of Abravanel (though without quoting him), namely that the scall had no hair at all of either color.^[6]

Understanding Scribal Error

While it is possible that LXX is a correction, it is more likely that MT is a scribal error. Often scribal errors are due to words sounding the same, if the scribe is taking dictation, or to their looking the same, if the scribe is copying from another scroll. In this case, however, shachor (“black”) neither looks nor sounds like tzahov (“yellow”).

Later in this passage, a similar error occurs, with the scribe replacing the prepositional phrase אוֹ בַשְּׁתִי אוֹ בָעֵרֶב “in the warp or the woof,” relevant to clothing, with בְּקָרַחְתּוֹ אוֹ בְגַבַּחְתּוֹ “on its back bald patch or front bald patch,” relevant to men. This appears to be the same kind of error: the clause fits grammatically but makes no sense in context.^[7] Both of these errors are the kinds of mistakes one might expect to find in the midst of a long, technical legal passage, where the copyist is following the grammatical and syntactic contours but not the details. In this case, he replaced one color mentioned in the passage for another.