As to the purification of the houses wliicli haVe been cured of leprosy, the process is t4ie same as tluit of healed men, except that in the case of man the priest sprinkles seven times u|)on his hand, while in tliat of tlie liouse he sprinkles seven times on the u]iper door-post without. Of course the sacrifices which the leprous man had to
bring in his second stage of purification are precluded in the case of the house (Maimonides, On Leprosi/, xv, 8).
3. Prevalence, Contagion, and Curahleness of Leprosy. — Though the malicious story of Manetho that the Egyptians expelled the Jews because they were afflict- ed with leprosy (Josephus, Ap. i, 20), which is rejieated by Tacitus (lib. v, c. 3), is rejected by modern histo- rians and critics as a fabrication, yet Michaclis {Lau-s of Moses, art. 209), Thomson {The Land and tlie Hook, p. 652), and others stiU maintain that this disease was '•extremely prevalent among the Israelites." Against this, however, is to be urged that, 1. The very fact that such strict examination was enjoined, and that every one who had a pimple, spot, or boil was shut up, shows that leprosy could not have been so widespread, inas- much as it would require the imprisonment of the great- mass of the people. 2. In cautioning the people against the evil of leprosy, and urging on them to keep strict- ly to the directions of the priest, Moses adds, '■•Remem- ber what the Lord thy God did to Miriam on the way when you came out of Egypt" (Dent, xxiv, 9). Now allusion to a single instance which occurred on the way from Egypt, and which, therefore, was an old case, nat- urally implies that leprosy was of rare occurrence among the Jews, else there would have been no necessity to adduce a by-gone case ; and, 3. Wherever leprosy is spo- ken of in later books of the Bible, which does not often take place, it is only of isolated cases (2 Kings vii, 3 ; XV, 5), and the regulations are strictly carried out, and the men are shut up so that even the king himself formed no exception (2 Kings xv, 5).
That the disease ^vas not contagious is evident from the regulations themselves. The priests had to be in constant and close contact with lepers, had to examine and handle them; the leper who was entirely covered was pronounced clean (Lev. xiii, 12, 13) ; and the priest himself commanded that all things in a leprous house should be taken out before he entered it, in order that they might not be pronounced unclean, and that they might be used agam (Lev. xiv, 36), which most unquee- fionablj' implies that there was no fear of contagion. This is, moreover, corroborated by the ancient Jewish canons, which were made by those very men who had personally to deal with this distemper, and according to which a leprous minor, a heathen, and a proselyte, as well as leprous garments, and houses of non-Israelites, do not render any one luiclean ; nor does a bridegroom, who is seized with this malady during the nuptial week, defile any one during the first seven days of his mar- riage (com p. Xegaim, iii, 1,2; vii, 1 ; xi, 1 ; xii, 1 ; Mai- monides, On Leprosy, vi, 1; vii, 1, etc.). These canons would be utterly inexplicable on the hypothesis that the distemper in question was contagious. The enactments, therefore, about the exclusion of the leper from society, and about detilement, were not dictated by sanitarv cau- tion, but had their root in the moral and ceremonial law, like the enactments about the separation and un- cleanness of mensfruous women, of those who had an issue or touched the dead, which are joined with lepro- sy. Being regarded as a punishment for sin. which (iod himself intlicted ui)ou the dis(jl)edient ( Ivxod. xv. 2(); Lev. xiv, 35), this loathsome disease, with the jjcculiar rites connected therewith, was especially selected as a typical representation of the pollution of sin, in which light the Jews always viewed it. Thus we are told that " leprosy comes upon man for seven, ten. or eleven things: for idolatry, profaning the name of God, un- chastity, theft, slander, false witness, false judgment, perjur\-, infringing the borders of a neigldior, devising malicious plans, or creating discord between brothers" {Erachin, 16, 17; Baba Bathra, 164; Aboth de R. Xa- than, ix ; Midrash-Rabba on Lerit. xiv). " Cedar wood and hyssop, the highest and the lowest, give the leper liurity. Why these? Because pride was the cause of the distemper, which cannot be cured till man becomes humble, and keeps himself as low as hyssop" (Midrash Kabba, Koheleth, p. 104).
LEPROSY
375
LEPROSY
As to ihe curahleness of the disease, this is unques- tionably irapUed in the minute regulations about the sacritices and conduct of those ^vho were restored to health. Besides, in the case of jNIiriam, we (ind that shutting her up for seven days cured her of leprosy (Numljixii, 11-13).
II. Identity of the Biblical Leprosy u-ith the modem Distemper hecn-ing this Name. — It would be useless to discuss the different disorders which have been palmed upon the Mosaic description of leprosy. A careful clas- sification and discrimination is necessary.
1. The Greeks distinguished three species of lej^ra, the specific names of which were aXcpocXtvKt), and fii- \ac, which may be rendered the ritiliyo, the u-hite and the black: Now, on turning to the Mosaic account, we also find three species mentioned, which were all in- cluded under the generic term of r"lil3, hahereth, or " bright spot" (Lev. xiii, 2-4, 18-28). The first is called pilia, hohak, which signifies " brightness," but in a sub- ordinate degree (Lev. xiii, 39). This species did not render a person unclean. The second was called H'liia n3a!f>, hahereth lebandh. or a bright white bahereth. The characteristic marks of the hahereth lebandh mentioned by Moses are a glossy white and spreading scale upon an elevated base, the elevation depressed in the middle, the hair on the patches participating in the whiteness, and the patches themselves perpetually increasing. This was evitlently the true leprosy, probably corresponding to the vrhite of the Greeks and the viilyaris of modern science. The third was tltlS T'lna, bahereth Icehdh, or dusky bahereth, spreading in the skin. It has been thought to correspond with the black leprosy of the Greeks and the nif/ricans of Dr.Willan. These last two were also called r?"^^, tsardaih (i. e. proper leprosy), and rendered a person unclean. There are some other slight affections mentioned by name in Leviticus (chap, xiii), which the priest was reqiured to distinguish from leprosy, such as rxilJ, seeth ; PStJ, shaphdl; pr,3, ne- thek; "pHT, shechen, i. e. "elevation," " depressed," etc. ; and to each of these Dr. Good (Study of Med. v, 590) has assigned a modern systematic name. But, as it is use- less to attempt to recognise a disease otherwise than by a description of its symptoms, we can have no object in discussing his interpretation of these terms. We there- fore recognise but two species of real leprosy.