Talk:Tzaraath

Comment

The "Tzaraas as reward" section is meant to include the midrash about the Jews' entering the Land, finding houses with tzaraas, and tearing them down to find treasure hidden in the walls. —msh210 16:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replaced poorly supported version with new version and gave sources

Here are the two key pargraphs I added:

According to Dr. Harold Spinka, M.D., and Wycliff Bible Encyclopedia Biblical leprosy describes a number of conditions. Dr. Spinka states that besides including the modern leprosy, Biblical leprosy can also include various skin conditions, syphilis, small pox, and not merely the disease leprosy as we understood today (experts appear divided on whether Biblical leprosy includes modern leprosy, see Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia citation in the references section).[1] The Wycliffe Bible Encylopedia and the journal Perspectives in Biological Medicine states that Biblical leprosy may include mold which will be discussed later in greater length.[2]

Dr. Harold Spinka, M.D wrote regarding the Levitical law regarding Biblical leprosy, "A review of Leviticus of the Old Testament shows that the priests were in charge of infectious diseases, as well as of the moral and religious welfare of the nation. The differential diagnosis between infectious and non-infectious cutaneous diseases is quite modern." [3] Similarly, Arturo Castiglioni in A History of Medicine wrote, "The laws against leprosy in Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of a sanitary legislation" (p. 71). Castiglioni also stated, "Study of Biblical texts appears to have demonstrated that the ancient Semitic peoples, in agreement with the most modern tenets of epidemiology, attributed more importance to animal transmitters of disease, like the rat and the fly, than to the contagious individual" (p. 71).

ken 20:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

What other diseases could there be that so closely parallel what we currently call leprosy? How can anyone know whether it really was or not? It's not like there were cell cultures left around. They simply described an infectious skin disease that made the skin rot.. and we translated it as leprosy.. sounds right to me!

Causes of Tzaraath

It seems that the author is a bit too authoritative in his statement that Tzaraath is not leprosy. No references are stated other than ancient Jewish texts. In addition, the language of the article seems to grant too much authority to these texts. The section "Causes of Tzaraath" does not describe any scientifically supportable causes, but rather flatly states the Talmud's seven causes, never questioning them. No alternative possible cause is given, nor is a concession made that these are ancient superstitions.

What does that mean? Tzaraath is a biblical affliction. It is mentioned no where else but the Bible and texts that discuss the bible, including but not limited to the Mishna, Talmud, Jastrow dictionary, Encyclopedia Talmudis, and many commentaries, including but not limited to Maimonidies and Rashi. No one has it ever been corrolated to leprosy, except in antiquated English translations of the Old Testament. I say antiquated, because it is widely acknowledged that translations of the Old Testament prior to the 1990's were full of misinformation, exemplified by an issue such as this, as well as others such as beginning countless biblical verses with the article And..., when in reality, the letter vav, which does translate as and in some instances, actually serves a grammatical purpose in these instances, modifying the future tense into past tense. Leprosy has nothing to do with tzaraath except that it has been the unfortunate error in translation up until somewhere in the 1990's, when Artscroll and others had the courage to purge the then current translation from its numerous oddities of convention and mistakes of comprehension. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that when the commentor to whom you replied says "ancient Jewish texts" he means texts of Rabbinic Judaism, not the Torah. It is not clear to him that rabbis living in the second century C.E. had any special insight into the meaning of the Torah passages which mention tzaraath, rather he suspects that they had less insight then the modern reader since they did not have the benefit of modern medical knowledge.

Reading the article now (in 2013) I see that discussion of what the Torah says and how the Mishnah or even modern rabbis interpret it are not clearly distinguished. For example, who says that the house of a gentile is not succeptible to tzaraath? Does the Torah actually say this? This is not clear from the article.

Another confusing point is that the major alternative interpretation is not clearly described. I mean of course the view that the law on tzaraath is a sanitary law. Oblique references to it are scattered throughout the article in among statements which promote the opposite view. But nowhere is it clearly stated that this is a competing school of thought.

I would like to suggest that the article be reorganized along the following lines: 1) An introduction much like the one we have now, 2) an explanation of what the Torah says about it which would give us the information needed to understand the interpretations and why there might be multiple interpretations, 3) a brief explanation of what the Mishnah is and how it relates to the Torah followed by what it says about tzaraath, 4) elaborations by other rabbis such as Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, 5) an explanation of the view that the law on tzaraath is a sanitary law and modern attempts to identify it with diseases known today.

As an alternative suggestion, this article could be renamed to make it an article on rabbinic teaching about tzaraath.

Chappell (talk) 17 August 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Tzaraath of Houses

I suspect that the houses of ancient Israel were often made of mudbrick, which only lasts about 30 years as useful building blocks - and thus tzaraath could mean "deterioration" or "erosion", in the context of a house. Thus, the need to remove furniture, replace bricks, and/or demolish the house entirely. The principle can be extended to modern buildings, as well: structural deterioration could be counted as a type of tzaraath of buildings, and rust can be counted as tzaraath of bicycles and cars. Of course, this is the same sort of thinking that led to the overlegislation of the Talmud to begin with, but whatever. 204.52.215.107 17:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

you were correct in puting this on the talk page and not in the article itself. Theories, such as the one you stated are only able to be included in the article they can be sources to a particlar bible critic (or groups of bible critics) (see WP:OR and WP:V). If you can find published works that present decenting views of tzaraath please add it to the article presenting it as such. Jon513 20:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

List of reference to the disease

I would like to see a list of references to the disease in the Bible and the Talmud being compared (if they are different). I wonder if Tzaraath refers to the same disease in the New testament as in the old testament. I've always thought they were just leprosy. --Kvasir 05:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Go to this page: type in "leprosy", and it will give you Strong's Concordance online, with a link to the Hebrew and Greek words (both Hebrew "tsara`ath" and Greek "lepra") translated "leprosy" in the KJV. You don't need to know the biblical languages to use it: just click "H6883" and "G3014" and you'll see everywhere that those words are used in the original. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But the KJV of the bible is incorrect. It is based on the Septuagint, which was incorrect. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry DRosenbach, but the KJV is not based upon the Septuagint at all. The Old Testament is translated directly from the Masoretic Hebrew text, and the New Testament is translated directly from the Textus Receptus (Received Text). The Apocryphal books were indeed almost all translated from the Septuagint, but these are not part of the canon of Scripture accepted by most users of the KJV. In relation to your assertion that 'tzaraath' is not leprosy, you need to be aware that the Greek use of the word 'lepra' is linked directly back, by Jesus, to the Levitical rules regarding tzaraath. When the leper was told to show himself to the priest, as Moses had commanded, it is clear that the reference is to the Levitical rules discussed in the article here. So obviously Jesus interpreted 'tzaraath' as the same thing as 'lepra'. 217.42.89.63 (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Finlay

Tzaraath

How the hell am I supposed to pronounce that word? T'zarr-ruh? What? You can't pronounce that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.188.76 (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It reminds me of Shang Tsung from Mortal Kombat. I guess I'm supposed to pronounce the t in that name since the Japanese actually pronounce the t in tsunami. But then again I was taught that they didn't. So maybe you don't pronounce the T in tzaraath. And why two As? It really needs two As? like that. Tzar-aath? What is this, Korgoth of Barbaria?

I prefer Yiddish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.188.76 (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The word is spelled in Hebrew tzadi-resh-ayin-tav, including the vowels that makes for tsa-ra-'at. Where the apostrophe indicates the ayin which is some guttural sound. That is why the two a's. And the tz is the preferred way of anglicizing the tzadi per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Hebrew)#Consonant_table. Debresser (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite the case that the JPS uses English terms, there may be some reason for this to be titled in other than in English. What does the JPS use for garment rot? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Septuagint

I removed the "intended for Gentiles" line and the other POV comments. With all respect to Aristeas all we really know is how the text was used, and it primarily wasn't by Gentiles.In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Using Leviticus as a "ref" footnote

Primary sources should, and can, be in the text normally, not formatted as refs, since it isn't a ref. Good way of making OR look like sourcing, but not what refs are for. :( In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

From the entry under Boils and burns

"Boils and burns, as occur naturally as a result of an abscess, blunt force trauma or thermal insult to the skin...."

Would it be possible to change "thermal insult" to something else? If this means extreme exposure to heat or cold, then that would be better. Thank you. Risssa (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Section "Identification with Vitiligo" is quite misleading.

Is Vitiligo deeper than the surrounding skin? Which is the first set of criteria for tzara'at in Leviticus 14. The links below indicate that it is generally flat discoloration. Obviously there are many more sources from an easy google search which present the same idea.

Just from reading the text of leviticus 14, it seems that skin discoloration such as vitiligo might have been classified as tzara'at if it was in the process of spreading, but stagnant skin discoloration wouldn't have been. Ofcourse the religious Jewish community does and did use other rabbinical legal texts to clarify what is written in the Bible, and I am using an English translation of what was originally a Hebrew text.

Overall, it seems misleading for a person to post that "vitiligo and tzaraath are one and the same." Another example of how this is misleading, when has Vitiligo spread to a persons clothes? Causing " an intense green (ירקרק - yerakrak) or red (אדמדם - adamdam)" Never, in history, this sounds more like some kind of fungal infection, while Vitiligo is an auto-immune disorder. So the "Identification with Vitiligo" section in general is misleading especially saying "vitiligo and tzaraath are one and the same."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/245081.php "The only sign of Vitiligo is the appearance of flat white spots or patches on the skin." (flat)

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Vitiligo/Pages/Symptoms.aspx "The main symptom of vitiligo is flat, white spots or patches on your skin."

Edit. Da f*** this talk page hasn't been edited in over a year, I'll be waiting for your wonderful responses at some point in the next two years, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.128.56 (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Using the f-word certainly drew my attention a bit quicker. :) In any case, I agree with you and have changed the section title to "Modern attempts at identification". I also moved the section down to the end, where I think it logically should be placed, chronologically. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Egyptian parallels

There's probably some research regarding the possibility of connection to the conditions discussed in the Ebers and Brugsch papyri. — LlywelynII 21:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)