Leviticus · Chapter 12

And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying.

Speak to the children of Israel, saying: A woman who conceives and gives birth to a male shall be impure for seven days; as in the days of her menstrual separation she shall be impure.

אשה כי תזריע IF A WOMAN HAVE CONCEIVED SEED — R. Simlai said: Even as the formation of man took place after that of every cattle, beast and fowl when the world was created, so, too, the law regarding him is set forth after the law regarding cattle, beast and fowl (contained in the previous chapter) (Leviticus Rabbah 14:1). כי תזריע — These words are superfluous, כי ילדה would suffice — they mean literally, ”if she bringeth forth seed” and are employed to include the case that if she gave birth to him (the male child) as a pulpy mass which had dissolved, having become liquified like seed, even then its mother becomes unclean as though it were a normal birth (Niddah 27b). כימי נדת דותה תטמא AS IN THE DAYS OF THE SEPARATION FOR HER IMPURITY SHALL SHE BECOME UNCLEAN — According to the regulation of every uncleanness which is mentioned in the case of a נדה does she become unclean in respect to the uncleanness resulting from child-birth — even though the womb opened without any issue of blood (cf. Niddah 21a). דותה — This is an expression for anything which flows from her body (זב = דו, “flowing”), and the translation is: “as in the days of separation due to her flux”. Another explanation is: it has the same meaning as .מדוה (root דוה), malady and sickness, and this is termed דותה, “her sickness”, because no woman sees an issue of blood from herself except that, as a result of it, she becomes unwell and her head and limbs feel heavy (cf. Niddah 9a).

Rashi commented: “If a woman have conceived seed, and born [a male]. This includes a case where she gave birth to [the male child as] a fleshy mass which had dissolved, so that it became liquefied and like seed, in which case his mother becomes impure because of the birth” [as if it were a normal child]. The explanation of this matter is that we know that the child has been formed already in human form, and then became liquefied, for anything that does not have a human form is not considered a child, and similarly, whatever is not fit to become a creature with a soul, is not considered a child. But even if it is a fleshy dissolved mass at the time of birth, it makes the mother impure [for the prescribed number of days] provided we recognize its form, such as a foetus with its human parts fashioned, in which case the mother is certainly impure, and if not [i.e., the matter is in doubt] she is impure because of a doubt. This is what this verse comes to include according to the words of our Rabbis. Now with regard to the implication of the verse the Rabbis have said: “Ishah ki thazria — if the woman emits seed first, she will bear a son.” The intent of the Rabbis was not that the child is formed from the woman’s seed, for although the woman has generative organs [i.e., ovaries] like those of the man, yet seed is not formed by them at all, or [if it is formed], that seed is not thick and does not contribute anything to the embryo. Rather, the Rabbis used the term “she emits seed” with reference to the blood of the womb, which gathers in the mother at the time of the consummation of coition, and attaches itself to the seed of the male. For in the opinion of the Rabbis the child is formed from the blood of the female and the white [semen] of the man, and both of them are called “seed.” Thus the Rabbis have said: “There are three partners in [the formation of] man: The male emits the white [semen], from which are formed the sinews, the bones, and the white substance in the eye. The female emits a red secretion from which are formed the skin, the flesh, the blood, the hair, and the black substance in the eye.” The opinion of doctors as to the formation [of the embryo of the child] is also the same. In the opinion of the Greek philosophers, however, the whole body of the child is formed from [the substance of] the blood of the mother, the father only contributing that generative force which is known in their language as hyly, which gives form to matter. For there is no difference at all between the egg of a chicken which is laid because it was fructified by a male, and that laid as a result of the mother rolling herself in the dust, except that the egg [that had been fructified by a male] germinates into a young bird, while the other is not sown, nor beareth, because it is deprived of the elemental heat which is its hyly. And if so, the word tazria [in ishah ki thazria] will be like u’cheganah zeiru’eha thatzmiach (as the garden causeth the seeds that ...

"When a woman conceives" (אשה כי תזריע). After completing the laws of the pure and impure among foods, Scripture turns to the impurity of a human being, beginning with the woman who gives birth — for birth is the beginning. Many have said that when the woman emits seed first, she gives birth to a male; hence the text says "and she shall bear a male." This is also the view of the Greek sages: that the seed belongs to the woman, and the male's seed causes it to congeal, and the entire child comes from the blood of the woman. The meaning of תזריע, then, is "she gives seed" — for she is like the earth. The vav in וטמאה is like a soft peh in Arabic. The reason for her impurity lasting seven days is until she returns to the square (המרובע); and so it is found in days of illness — the change is visible until the end of seven days. "Her infirmity" (נדת): this is a noun of the pattern of בזת; both are from roots with doubled letters (פעלי הכפל). "Her sickness" (דותה): its sense is like "sickness," as in מדוה מצרים ("the diseases of Egypt"), for the blood that flows is a sickness in the woman's body.

אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר, the sages in Niddah 31 explain the term תזריע in our verse as “when a woman experiences her orgasm before her male partner the child born from such a union will be a male. The perception underlying this is that the woman’s “seed” is the moisture which she excretes from time to time at the time she engages in physical union with her partner does not enter into the formation of a male embryo. Her “semen” is active in suppressing the effect of the man’s semen. But her blood enters the semen of the male it moistens and provides addition impetus to the man’s semen, כימי נדבת דותה, for during the first seven days after her giving birth she is like a menstruating woman regarding her ritual status.

דבר …לאמור. "Speak…to say." Why does the word לאמור have to be repeated here, seeing verse 1 ended with the word לאמור, "to say?" Perhaps the reason is that this commandment is addressed primarily to women. The word לאמור after "the children of Israel," is a warning to the women to pay special attention to this legislation. We may also explain this extra word לאמור in accordance with Torat Kohanim on this verse which explains the words בני ישראל as excluding Gentiles. The word לאמור stresses that it is a privilege for Jewish women to be given this legislation. Had they not been on a spiritually higher level than their non-Jewish counterparts they would not have been considered as having suffered impurity through such a natural process as giving birth. [seeing that their spiritual level had been temporarily eclipsed by the need to focus on purely bodily functions, the mothers need to purify their bodies to make it fit again for their spiritual functions. Ed.] אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר, a woman who brings forth seed by giving birth to a male child, etc. Why did the Torah not simply write: אשה כי תלד זכר, "when a woman gives birth to a male child, etc.?" The words כי תזריע appear superfluous. Our sages disagree about the reason. Torat Kohanim on our verse writes that these words tell us that contrary to expectations a woman who was already pregnant before this legislation was revealed to the people is also subject to it, whereas she does not contract impurity if she gave birth just before this legislation was revealed. Anonymous sages state that when the baby is delivered by caesarean incision the mother does not contract impurity. The fetus has to exit from the same place where the seed entered. Rabbi Shimon holds that even if an indeterminate mass is delivered, i.e. some fetus clearly unable to live, the mother does contract impurity and has to bring the required offerings. He does not accept the view that if a woman gives "birth" by caesarean incision that she is not subject to the legislation in our chapter. Why did the Torah use the future tense in the words כי תזריע, and switch to the past tense writing וילדה instead of ותלד? We find that the Torah does use the word ותלד when describing the birth of a female child in verse 5! Although there are numerous instances when a form of the past tense of the verb is used by the Torah to describe something in the future, the Torah does not switch tenses unnecessarily without trying to draw our attention to some additional meaning. Furthermore, why does the Torah write וילדה, "she gave birth," instead of אם ילדה זכר, "if she gave birth to a male child as a result," seeing there is no certainty that she will indeed give birth to a male child rather than to a girl? One could answer the last question by saying that the word כי in כי תזריע is equivalent to the word אם, "if," and that this word belongs to the latter half of the verse. This is a forced explanation, however. Our sages in Niddah 31 as well as in...

אשה כי תזריע וילדה, “when a woman has fructification of seed and has given birth as a result;” the regulations about to be discussed apply only when she gives birth naturally from the womb, not by caesarean invasive procedure. Rabbi Shimon holds that a baby born by caesarean section is considered as having been “born,” and that its mother is obligated to offer the same sacrifices that the mother of a baby born from the womb has to offer. The only difference between such a baby and the one born from the mother’s womb, is that if it is firstborn male, its father does not have to redeem it by paying a priest five shekel. (Sifra) וילדה, even if the mother gave birth after only between five up to eight months pregnancy, she has to do so, and the restrictive nature of this word means that she has become ritually unclean by giving “birth” to a fetus after five or more months of pregnancy. (Sifra) זכר, “a male;” including if it was stillborn. וילדה זכר, “and she gave birth to a male;” According to our author (quoting ספר התולדות), a woman’s body contains seven openings, three on her left side, three on her right side, and one in the center. If her husband’s semen enters via the openings on her right side it will produce a male child. If it enters through the openings on her left side, she will produce a female child. If it enters through the opening in her center she will produce either a hermaphrodite possessing both fully developed masculine and feminine organs, or neither of such organs that are fully developed. Her position in bed shortly after her husband’s ejaculating semen into her determines through which of these openings the semen travels. If she lies on her right side the degree of ritual contamination “evaporates” faster than if she had been lying on her left side; this is why she cannot resume marital relations with have husband or offer her respective sacrifices until this process has run its natural cause. Lying on her left side at that critical juncture slows down the ritual contamination which was the result of the mother having been impregnated with her partners’ semen. This is why the Torah decreed different length of 33 or 66 days before the mother can purify herself. (verses 47) The above is hinted at by Solomon in Song of Songs 2,6: שמאלו תחת לראשי, “with his left hand under my head.” The maid’s lover did this in order to help his partner to give birth to males. [The fact that Solomon who had so many wives and concubines produced only a single male heir is proof that G-d’s active providence overrides nature. Ed.] וטמאה, “she will be ritually unclean;” the emphasis here is on the suffix ה meaning only the mother, not her child will become ritually unclean as a result of that birth. (Sifra) שבעת ימים, “for seven days;” in the event that she gave birth to twins or more babies, the count starts at the end of the last birth. When the students of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai asked him why the Torah decreed different lengths of ritual contamination depending on the sex of the baby, he answered them that the birth of a male baby results in an even greater degree of joy than the birth of a female baby. As a result, the baby’s mother retracts her oath made at the time of enduring the pains during her delivery sooner than after the birth of a daughter, (who is after all also destined to undergo such pain in due course.) נדת, this word is a variant for distance, temporary disassociation, as for instance in Job 18,18: ומתבל ינדוהו, “and chased out of the world.” In our verse the separation is from her husband. כימי נדת דותה, “just as she separates from him during the days when she has her menses. A Baraitha (Niddah, folio 31) relates that Rabbi Meir explained the reason why generally speaking the period of a woman’s menses lasts seven days, is because if her husband had to abstain from marital relations with her during that period, she will be as desirable for him at the end of that period as she was when he stood with her under the wedding canopy. The woman who just gave birth is familiar with the seven day period during her menses and it is a period she abhors. By reminding her of this comparison, she may look forward to having marital relations with her husband again as when pregnant she does not experience the discomfort of her menses. By the same token, this separation also awakens desire in her for her husband.

שמחה לאיש במענה פיו ודבר בעתו מה טוב, “A ready response causes man joy; how good is a word spoken at the right time!” (Prov.15,23) In this verse Solomon explains that if a person speaks wisely, weighing his words carefully, he will derive pleasure from this; the reason is that such words originate with the intellect at the instigation of the intellectual soul which is part of man. This is what gives man his advantage over other creatures on earth. This is why the gift of speech is attributed to G’d of whom Isaiah 57,19 said בורא ניב שפתים, “who creates the fruit of the lips.” By making this comment the prophet praised the Lord just as he had praised Him for having created heaven and earth and the stars (Isaiah 42,5) which are viewed as “independent” creations imbued with intelligence (compare Maimonides Yesodei Hatorah 3,9). The gist of Solomon’s statement is that when man prepares his words carefully so that they express his thoughts accurately, and he uses his G’d-given intelligence to do so, he will enjoy the results. It is well known that whereas it is within man’s power to plan what he wants to do, the actual words he speaks (execution of his plans) are not under his control but are under G’d’s control as we know from Proverbs 16,1: לאדם מערכי לב ומה' מענה לשון, “a man may plan with his heart; but the answer of the tongue comes from the Lord.” When man’s planning and the thoughts he expresses as a result of his planning are in tandem, reflect his thoughts, this is cause for joy as it proves that G’d has approved what he had in mind. It means that he enjoys Divine assistance in what he is embarking on. Solomon also means that although everything man thinks may be fully correct, expressing his thoughts at the wrong time and at the wrong place are not. If a man has composed a beautiful poem and set it to music and proceeds to sing his song in the house of mourning, this would be a prime example of doing the right thing at the wrong time. The same applies to someone composing an elegy and proceeding to read it in public at a joyous occasion. In both instances the misplaced sense of timing results in the composer’s words not being appreciated, not causing joy to the composer. Hence Solomon emphasises in the above verse the importance of “speaking the right words at the right time.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 27,4 have said that at a time of joy it is appropriate to say things of a joyful nature, whereas at a time of mourning the reverse is in place. Our sages in Megillah 32, speaking of the same subject, have stipulated that the laws about the observance of Passover should be studied and discussed at or before Passover, whereas the laws pertaining to Tabernacles should be discussed thirty days prior to that festival, etc. Discussing the laws of Tabernacles around Passover time does not reflect a proper sense of timing. All these considerations prompted Solomon to write the verse we quoted at the introduction, i.e. emphasising the importance of a sense of timing. Sometimes we have an urge to share some thought with our peers or our students because we are so convinced of the importance of the message of our thoughts. One needs to consider carefully if the time is appropriate for voicing such a thought, as voicing it at the wrong time or in the wrong environment may diminish its impact. Even the best ideas must be presented only at the appropriate time. A Midrashic approach (based on Bereshit Rabbah 3,3). The words שמחה לאיש which Solomon speaks about in Proverbs 15,23 are a reference to G’d, seeing G’d (the Lord) is described as ה' איש מלחמה, “The Lord is a man of war” (Exodus 15,3), similarly, the expression במענה פיו, “with the expression of his mouth,” refers to the timing of G’d saying: “let there be light and it was light” (Genesis 1,3). The words ודבר בעתו מה טוב, “and how good is a word spoken at its appropriate time,” reflect what the Torah said “G’d saw the light and it was good,” i.e. He had given the directive at precisely the right time, [having waited 974 generations for that moment according to our tradition. Ed.] Thus far the Midrash. We know that the words: “G’d saw that it was good,” appear in connection with all the six days of creation [except the second day, but twice with the third day, Ed.]. This means that G’d’s directives calling the respective parts of the universe into existence and arranging for them to function were all the result of דבר בעתו, “a word spoken at the time appropriate for it.” This does not conflict with the view we expressed that the entire universe was created at one and the same moment. Our sages have already illustrated how we are to understand this apparent contradiction when they told us the parable about the farmer who planted six different seeds all at the same time. The plants growing out of these different seeds each germinated, grew and became ripe at different times (Bereshit Rabbah 12,3). Even though they were all put in the earth at the same time, they did not grow at a uniform rate of speed. Concerning such careful timing by G’d Solomon said in Kohelet 3,1: “He did everything at the appropriate time.” The creatures which matured later were not inferior, but on the contrary, they were superior, more sophisticated. As a result, man was the most superior creature of all coming into meaningful existence last. Similarly, the Sabbath is the best of all the days seeing it was last to make its appearance. Israel was the last nation to emerge as a separate nation, 70 other nations having preceded it. This makes the Jewish nation the choicest of them all. Although the last to make their appearance on the stage of history, G’d had planned to have a Jewish people on earth long before He made provision for all the other nations to become historical entities. By the same token, the hereafter, known as עולם הבא, precisely because it takes such a long time to mature, to emerge from its cocoon, is a superior world. We have evidence that Israel was first in G’d’s planning from Jeremiah 2,2: “Israel is holy to G’d the first (and choicest) of His harvest.” In other words, the first (and finest) harvest G’d looked forward to was Israel. The other nations may be viewed as “miscarriages,” fetuses prematurely aborted. When G’d referred to the Jewish people in the verse from Jeremiah we just quoted in translation, He did not use the adjective kadosh or kedoshim to describe their being holy, but He chose the word kodesh, a noun, meaning that Israel was holy in its own right. The implication is that the Jewish people draw on the source of holiness for their existence. We find a similar word when the Torah commands or promises the Jewish people that their destiny is to be or become אנשי קודש, “men (and women) devoted to holiness” (Exodus 22,30). When the Torah describes the Jewish people as G’d’s portion (Deut. 32,9), the idea is similarly that the Jewish people are part of G’d, i.e. of His Holiness. G’d did not assign inter-stellar forces, signs of the zodiac known as mazzalot to supervise the fortunes of the Jewish people as He had done for the 70 nations of the earth, but instead He supervises them personally by means of what is known as hashgachah peratit, “personal benevolent supervision of our collective and individual fates.” When Israel was described as G’d’s first harvest, ראשית תבואתה, (the reading of the last letter is “au”, i.e. the masculine pronoun referring to Hashem). Remember that there are five species of grain all of which are “harvested.” The word ראשית derived from ראש, head, means “the choicest.” The letter ה at the end of the word תבואתה may refer to the 5 kinds of physical harvests, i.e. the five different kinds of grain from which bread is made, or, in the case of the Jewish people, to the five kinds of spiritual harvest, i.e. the “Five Books of Moses,” the Torah. The choicest of the five species of grain is wheat, whereas the choicest Books of the Bible (Torah) are the Five Books of Moses. Concerning all this, the Midrash quotes a parable. There was a king who betrothed a bride to himself giving her five rings as token of the betrothal. The number “five” corresponded to the betrothal between G’d and Israel described in Hoseah 2,21-22 with the words: “I will betroth you to Me forever, with righteousness, with justice, with goodness and with mercy; and I will betroth you to Me with faithfulness, and you will be devoted to the Lord.” This then is the meaning of the word ראשית, i.e. it ranks first. The “first” of which the prophet speaks includes that Israel ranks higher in attributes than the other nations, and that it also enjoys an advantage in time, i.e. they were the first consideration G’d entertained when He planned to create man, etc. The word ראשית denoting superior quality is found in Amos 6,6 ראשית השמנים, “the choicest of the oils.” The same word describing precedence in terms of time occurs in Genesis 10,10 ותהי ראשית ממלכתו בבל, “the first country under his rule was Babylon.” We have established that whereas Israel was first in terms of G’d’s planning it was last in terms of that plan being executed. Consider the fact that Esau and the rulers descended from him preceded Yaakov’s development as a nation commencing with Esau’s birth which is described as “the first one emerged (from Rivkah’s womb) very reddish looking, etc.” (Genesis 25,25). Esau developed much earlier than his twin Yaakov. Esau married at the age of 40. The only reason the Torah bothered to tell us all these details about Esau and his descendants is to contrast them with Yaakov who was a “late bloomer,” not marrying until he was 84 years of age. Nonetheless, David already said in Psalms 40,6 “You have set out wonders and devised them for us.” We find a saying in the Kuzari 3,73 that תחלת המחשבה סוף המעשה, “that which came first in planning was the last to be carried out.” Let us illustrate the reason for such apparently illogical behaviour. Reuven wanted to study Torah but did not have a study hall with the requisite library. In order to carry out his plan he first has to build the study hall and acquire the necessary books. In other words, the Torah study, the purpose of all these endeavors, can only be carried out after preparatory activities. The parable we just described has much in common with a comment by our sages on Deut. 2,19 exhorting us not to harass the Moabites or Ammonites. In answer to the question why G’d had singled out these two nations, warning the Israelites not to harass them, our sages in Baba Batra 35 explain hat this was on account of two great descendants that would emerge from these two peoples, Ruth the Moabite and Naamah the Ammonite. Clearly, although these women were born many hundreds of years later than the Israelites’ trek through the desert, this is another example of future events casting long shadows ahead, i.e. G’d’s foreknowledge determining present day behaviour. All of the examples mentioned showed that fruits which develop later are superior to results which are visible immediately. One may compare this to someone who has lost a pearl at the beach and who sieves through bucket after bucket of sand, until finally, he finds the pearl. All that sand, though apparently having no immediate use, was necessary in order to enable the pearl to be found. All the tedium of sifting the sand proved worthwhile in retrospect. This explains much of human history, and even much of Jewish history. Tanchuma Vayeshev 1 explains the ten generations between Adam and Noach and the ones between Noach and Avraham as necessary preludes to someone like Avraham. All of human history and G’d’s frustrations with its disobedience to Him must find their justification in the eventual emergence of such pearls as Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. The tedious process of ploughing, seeding, etc., etc., has only one ultimate but long delayed objective, i.e. the fruit which the soil or tree will yield as a result. Man is described by David in Psalms 139,5 as ראשון ואחרון צרתני, “You have formed me both first and last;” David meant that though man was the last creature to emerge on earth on the sixth day, he was the first in G’d’s planning of the entire creative process. The word ראשון in that psalm may also mean “choicest, most accomplished.” The word אחרון of course, applies to the process of actual creation. As soon as G’d created man, He gave him the first positive commandment as well as a negative commandment. The first commandment was that he was to eat from all the trees in Gan Eden; the first negative commandment was that he was not to eat from the tree of knowledge. In a manner paralleling what G’d commanded Adam when He had placed him in Gan Eden, in the previous portion the Torah devoted three paragraphs to different categories of life in this terrestrial earth and how such animals may or may not interact with superior forms of life, i.e. man. First the Torah deals with the mammals, animals whose primary raw material is earth, dust, i.e. the most primitive of the four elements making up the terrestrial universe which we discussed already. Secondly, it deals with what may and what may not be eaten of the animals primarily formed from the element water, a slightly more sophisticated element. Thirdly, it dealt with which birds may not be eaten, i.e. creatures whose primary element is the רוח, the wind, i.e. an element much closer to the celestial domain than the previous two. Finally, beginning with our portion, the Torah addresses the most superior creature, i.e. man and immediately repeats the commandment of circumcision as if to emphasise that further refinement of man the species was still necessary. The Torah makes plain by means of this commandment that the principal reason man has been created is to perform G’d’s commandments. This is what Job had in mind (Job 5,7) when we are told there that אדם לעמל יולד, “man has been born in order to toil.” The “toil” referred to is the effort involved in studying and observing G’d’s Torah. This is the reason why the commandments connected to a woman giving birth are surrounded by a variety of commandments both before and after that particular paragraph. The commandments preceding the laws to be observed in connection with the birth of a human being all deal with permitted or forbidden food. This is what our sages (in Tanchuma Tazria 1) had in mind when they interpreted the above-mentioned verse in Psalms 139,5 to mean that the אחור, “after,” the prophet referred to were all the mammals, birds and creeping creatures which had been created before man, whereas the word קדם they understand as applying to the human baby being born to whom G’d already gave directives concerning how to conduct itself after it would leave the mother’s womb. In other words, man’s creation or birth is conditional on his keeping G’d’s commandments. The immediate commandment is the perfor- mance of circumcision of the male baby. [Or, seeing the fetus is taught the Torah while still in its mother’s womb, this is what entitles it to be born. Ed.] אשה כי תזריע, “when a woman conceives, etc.,” Actually, the Torah should have written simply: “when a woman gives birth, etc.” What duties devolve upon her as a result of merely conceiving? The Torah reveals here that even if no live fetus is born and the fetus is no longer recognizable as such when aborted (compare Rashi based on Niddah 27), the rule about impurity contracted as a result of pregnancy or abortion applies. This word is why our sages in Niddah 31 state that when the woman is the first one to experience orgasm during marital relations the baby born will be male. The reverse is true when the husband reaches climax first. When the Talmud uses the expression מזרעת in describing this process we translated as “orgasm” or “climax” when applicable to the woman, this refers to the fluid supplied by the woman [seeing that the word appears to be a misnomer, a woman not having semen, Ed.]. The fluid meant by the Talmud (according to our author) is the menstrual blood inside her womb. This fluid is called אודם, a reddish looking fluid in the Hebrew of the Mishnah. The parallel fluid of the male is known as לובן, i.e. a whitish fluid. Both fluids are known as זרע, “seed,” “semen.” Compare Niddah 31 where we are told that there are three partners needed to produce a human being, 1) G’d, 2) the father; and 3) the mother. According to the Talmud the father’s contribution of the לובן will result in the infant’s brain, tendons, and bones as well as its nails and the white of its eye. The אודם contributed by the mother will turn into the skin, blood, and flesh of the infant, the hair and pupil of the eye. G’d contributes the spirit, the soul, and the exterior appearance of the face as well as the ability of the eye to see, the power of speech and the lips, as well as the ability of the legs to walk, knowledge, insight and intelligence. The word תזריע is transitive, i.e. denotes an active participation. According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of this word (Ibn Ezra) is that she hands over the “semen” which is on deposit with her from the male much as the earth yields up the seed deposited in the soil of the field for it to emerge at the proper time as the desired product. This is the reason why Exodus 21,22 writes כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה, “as the husband of the woman (who aborted due to the injury) will impose on the guilty party.” Seeing that the children of a woman are considered the husband’s (property), the Torah did not write כאשר תשית עליו האשה “as the woman (the actually injured party) imposes on the one who caused her injury.” The husband may assess the loss he has suffered in financial terms. See my comments in Exodus 21,22. However, the scientists claim that the entire fetus (body) is part of the mother and that the man’s part or contribution to it is only an ingredient they called היולי, “genes” (something primeval, original) which influences the shape and composition of the material as soon as the man’s semen mixes with the blood of the woman. At the same time it also eliminates the sperm which will not fertilize the ovum of the woman. Its effect on those parts is similar to the effect of the stomach of an animal introduced into milk to make it congeal and become cheese. According to these scientists there is evidence supporting their claims. 1) They compare the formation of a human fetus to the fertilization of a hen’s egg which grows and hatches a chick through having been fertilized by the male, the rooster. Whenever the hen absorbs that semen from the earth through rolling around on the ground and not directly from the rooster, it fails to produce a chick. This is due to absence of physical contact with the rooster which alone would provide the shape and outward appearance of the product. [If I understand correctly the egg remains an egg unless it had been fertilized by the rooster at the outset of its formation. Ed.] This agrees with the opinion of our sages at the beginning of Tractate Beitzah 7 where the Talmud engages in scientific observations such as that when intercourse occurred by day the birth of the creature resulting from such intercourse will be born by day. In connection with the hatching of chicks, the Talmud is on record that when a certain person asked around who had the egg of a hen which had been laid by a live hen, they brought him instead the egg of a hen which had been slaughtered (before the egg was laid). The buyer went to Rabbi Ami demanding that the sale be annulled and his money be refunded as he had been tricked. His money was returned. Another incident related there refers to someone who specifically requested an egg from a hen which had been fertilized by a rooster. He was brought instead an egg from a hen which had absorbed the semen of the rooster through rolling around on the ground. He too complained to Rabbi Ami and had his money refunded after the egg failed to produce a chick. The sale was considered based on deception. It was understood that the condition attached by the buyer was clear evidence that he did not mean to eat the egg but to hatch it. Unless Rabbi Ami had thought that semen absorbed by the hen indirectly could not result in a chick being hatched, he had no reason to reverse that sale. 2) Some birds produce eggs through oral contact or mere “hugging” with their mates, there being no emission of semen by the male. [Rabbi Chavell refers the reader to an halachic responsum by Rabbi Mendel Kirshenbaum based on the Midrash to Proverbs 30,19: “the way of a man with a virgin.” Ed.] This would prove that the male semen does not form part of the fetus. 3) Female fish produce eggs without ever having been in contact with their male counterparts. These eggs are subsequently sprinkled with male semen. The ones which absorb it hatch in due course, the ones which fail to be sprinkled with semen do not develop. This is a phenomenon we do not only find among the species of living creatures but it occurs all the time amongst the plants. When you take a male palm tree and you graft the branch of a female palm on to it, it becomes capable of producing fruit. The assumption is that the male provides a certain degree of warmth for the female to enable it to produce dates. These are the theories of the leading philosopher (Aristotle) on the subject, including a few of his proofs. The reason that when the woman performs her part in cohabitation with her husband first the result is a male child and the reverse, is very simple. If the woman has already contributed her part to the process the male semen is added last and as such will assert itself over the already present female part of the resulting embryo. If the male performs his part of the sexual act first this process is reversed and the female asserts its dominance over the semen already absorbed by the woman. If we want to understand this phenomenon more graphically, picture a field which is being seeded. In our parable, the first drop of semen be it male or female, is compared to the soil of the field; the last drop of semen, be it male or female is compared to the grains of seed implanted in the soil of the field. We all know hat that which is contributed last determines the shape and appearance of the ultimate product which the earth produces. Therefore, if the male partner in the union of husband and wife contributes its part first it is like the seed, whereas if the female partner contributes its part first, it is like the soil. Whoever contributes his or her part last determines the nature of the product i.e. a male or female infant. An approach based on the approach of experts of natural science, i.e. that the man’s semen does not become part of the fetus at all. The statement that when the woman climaxes first the result is a male infant must be understood as follows: when the woman enjoys the warmth and embrace of her husband she concentrates so much on the image of her husband, the male, that this hastens her climax. The mental images she entertained during those moments leave an enduring imprint on the ovum which is fertilised so that a male infant will be born from that union. We have an example of such a result when Yaakov peeled the sticks near the watering troughs in Genesis 30,37. When the flocks became stimulated by the appearance of the white streaks or whatever, which Yaakov arranged to simulate the desired skin pattern he wanted these ewes to give birth to, the stratagem worked perfectly. The important thing was for the mating of these animals to take place while they had these images firmly in focus. There is no difference between the reaction of the males or the females of the species, and the same holds true in an even stronger degree when humans react to visual images of this kind. If even animals which react only instinctively, having no intelligence or power of imagination, react so strongly to such images, people do so even more. If someone is able to control his urges and wait with achieving his climax until after his wife has done so his reward will be that his wife will give birth to a male child. This is what the sages (compare Iggeret Hakodesh page 328 by Nachmanides, Chavell edition) referred to when they explained the meaning of Psalms 127,3: “sons are the provision of the Lord; the fruit of the womb, His reward.” The people so rewarded are the husbands who display patience while lying on their wives’ wombs giving their wives a chance to climax first. Some people offer an additional meaning for the words: “when a woman climaxes first she will bear male offspring;” they claim that the woman’s “semen” has a hidden power, i.e. the power of the male. [Just as we perceive of G’d’s attribute of Mercy, for instance, to harbour within it a small fraction of the attribute of Justice, and vice versa, so the whole concept of male and female, attributes which were united in one body before Chavah was separated from Adam, also each contains a minute part of its opposite. Ed.] Seeing that woman is a derivative of man, so to speak, it is no more than natural that a male child is a derivative of the female of the species. If woman climaxes first this means that she activated this potential male power within her, whereas the reverse is the case if man climaxes first. Having said this we realise that both man and woman have it within their power to recreate a complete set of human beings, a male and a female, “a complete building.” If we want to round out this picture, remember that the full name of G’d, the tetragram, does not appear in connection with the entire story of creation until after the creation of the human species. In their commentary on Genesis 2,2 and 2,4 וייצר י-ה-ו-ה אלו-הים את האדם, our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 13,3) remark cryptically: “a complete name of G’d applicable to a complete universe.” How is it possible to describe the universe as complete when woman had not yet been created? [We hear about Chavah becoming a separate body only in Genesis 2,22] The answer clearly is that Adam had been equipped with the female hormones, or whatever, to enable him to produce female offspring. This full name of the Lord is used again when G’d is described as building up the side He had removed from Adam into a separate human body, a female, i.e. Chavah. This conveys the idea that Chavah too has been equipped with the potential to reproduce either as male or female. In other words, each human being is theoretically able to determine the gender of the offspring it produces. We have a complete verse illustrating this concept in Genesis 46,15: אלה בני לאה אשר ילדה ליעקב בפדן ארם ואת דינה בתו כל נפש וגו’, “these were the sons of Leah whom she bore for Yaakov in Padan Aram, and Dinah his daughter; all the persons, etc.” The Torah attributes the male children to the mother and the female children to the father. When we said that the male harbours within him the essence of the female, and the female harbours with her the essence of the male, the meaning is not that as a result of such biological factors a woman can give birth to a female and a male to a male (each unassisted by the other). Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 14,9 have already said that there is no barber who can shave himself, i.e. man or woman each require a partner of the opposite sex in order to perform the act of procreation. A Midrashic approach to our verse (based on Tanchuma Tazria 3): the words אשה כי תזריע mean that when the woman initiates and climaxes first וילדה זכר, she will give birth to a male child. By inference, when the man climaxes first she will give birth to a female child. This is borne out by the words ואם נקבה תלד, (in connection with the birth of a male child the Torah described a dual process, i.e. climax and birth; when describing the birth of a female child no mention is made of the woman climaxing.) Miracles are performed by G’d with this infant (before it is born). When a person is locked up in a jail for even a single day his entire personality yearns to be set free. The fetus, a human being at some stage, is locked up inside the womb of a woman for nine months and G’d protects it there during the entire period. Rabbi Meir elaborates explaining that during the entire nine months the fetus draws blood from its mother whereas as soon as it is born this blood is transformed into milk and the baby starts nursing from its mother’s breast. An intellectual approach to our verse: man experiences three different worlds in the course of his existence. He experiences the first such world while he is within his mother’s womb; during this stage man begins to develop and to admire the wondrous ways of his Creator and the greatness of His works. Concerning this stage of man’s development David has said in Psalms 139,15: “My frame was not concealed from You while I was being shaped in a hidden place, knit together in the recesses of the earth.” He had already referred to this phenomenon earlier in verse 14 of the same psalm when he said: “I praise You for I am awesomely, wondrously made; Your work is wonderful.” David was speaking about all the wonderful ways required for G’d to produce a sophisticated creature such as man. The men of the Great Assembly who perfected the liturgy of the daily prayers for us already acknowledged all this when they bade us recite every morning the words: אשר יצר את האדם בחכמה וברא בו נקבים, , “Who has fashioned man with wisdom and provided him with numerous orifices any one of which if not functioning correctly would prove fatal to him” [loosely translated. Ed.]. The signature of this short prayer concludes with ומפליא לעשות, “and doing wonders.” Considerations of this nature prompted Solomon to write in Kohelet 11,5: “Just as you do not know how the life breath passes into the limbs within the womb of the pregnant woman, so you cannot foresee the actions of G’d, who causes all things to happen.” in other words, all of G’d’s works are of a mysterious miraculous nature. Solomon simply uses as an example something we are aware of and familiar with to illustrate a principle which operates throughout the universe. Just as it is beyond our understanding to understand how something spiritual is introduced into the womb, so it is beyond our understanding to understand the workings of G’d’s השגחה, benevolent supervision of what goes on in His universe, and how His designs in it can be assured despite our freedom of choice. Concerning this part of the cosmos and the mysterious ways in which G’d operates within it, Job says (Job 10,9-11): “consider that You fashioned me like clay; will You then turn me into dust? You poured me out like milk, congealed me like cheese; You clothed me with skin and flesh and wove me of bones and sinews.” Job referred to the world in which man spends a strictly limited time, nine months plus a few days at the outside. In that part of his world man is devoid of intelligence and knowledge and is not exposed to external pressures. He would be quite content to remain within this mini-cosmos for all his life seeing that all his needs are taken care of without his having to lift a finger, were it not for the fact that he has no control over being born into a larger cosmos. This is what our sages in Avot (end of fourth chapter) referred to when they said: “man is born against his will.” No wonder man cries at the moment of birth seeing that he leaves behind such an ideal existence. This is merely an indication that the world the baby is born into is one full of pain, disappointments, and confusion. Man had been transferred from the world in which he was formed into the second world he experiences during his existence, this present terrestrial universe. He does have certain advantages compared to the world he has left behind when he left his mother’s womb. In this world as a general rule man’s intellect grows more or less apace with the development of his body. His wisdom keeps increasing until he becomes wise as a result of having studied the Torah and performed its commandments. As a by-product of all this he acquires a degree of understanding of the workings of G’d, his Creator. In spite of all this, man’s stay in this present terrestrial world is of very limited duration, as a rule not exceeding eighty years. When he dies, i.e. is removed from this life, this also occurs against his will, and this has prompted the sages in Avot 4 which we quoted already as commenting on our involuntary birth to say that our death is equally involuntary. Had man been asked about his preference, the chances are that he would have opted to live on earth forever. From this terrestrial universe man is transferred to the third world he will experience, i.e. the world known as עולם הבא, “the world to come,” the world of the future. There are no limitations of time in that world. The delights enjoyed in that world are not transient. In that world man is compensated for all the good deeds he has performed while on earth. Considering all that we have described, it is clear that man progresses in an ascending manner from one world to the next, from good to better to best. The first world man lives in is dark. The second world man lives in is illuminated by two luminaries, the sun and the moon. In the third world man will attain is full of unbounded brilliant light. That world knows no boundaries and no darkness. Solomon alludes to all these three worlds in a single verse (Kohelet 7,1) when he says: “a good name is better than fragrant oil, and the day of death than the day of birth.” This verse has to be understood in the following manner: “the treasures” i.e. accumulated merits man acquired while alive on earth, and in store for him in the celestial regions are superior to even the most fragrant oils on earth; oil, i.e. body-oil for rubbing, is perceived as a means to make the body feel good and to enhance the quality of life on earth. Solomon says that what is in store for the soul in the world to come is better than the best of what the body can experience here on earth. He also uses the word “oil” as a commodity similar to “money,” saying that all the money in this world cannot compete with the spiritual treasures in the next world. His meaning is similar to that in Proverbs 21,20: “precious treasure and oil are in the house of the wise man.” The words: “and the day of death is better than the day of his birth,” mean that that day is better than the world the fetus spent in his mother’s womb. Solomon’s point is that just as the terrestrial world is superior to the fetus’ existence within the womb of his mother, so the world to come is superior to life on terrestrial earth. That life is the follow-up of death in the world of the womb. In other words, leaving behind the life in the womb, “dying” from it, is an improvement on what went before; similarly leaving behind life on this earth ushers in an even better life for the person concerned, hence “the day of death is better than the day of entry into that life which one leaves behind.” Solomon follows the principle that phenomena with which we are familiar, i.e. life in the womb and life on earth and their relative pleasures provide us with a clue to what is ahead and has not yet been experienced. וטמאה שבעת ימים, “as a result she will remain in a state of ritual impurity for seven days.” It is G’d’s decree that just as the state of impurity lasts for seven days, the purification rites require seven days. The number “seven” applies equally to days of impurity, days of purification, days of joy (after a wedding or the duration of certain festivals) and days of mourning. כימי נדת דותה תטמא, “her impurity is as long as her impurity due to menstruation.” The expression דותה is derived from מדוה, a description of a “natural” sickness, i.e. the menstruation period a woman experiences at regular intervals. Our sages (Niddah 9) have also explained that during such a period a woman’s heads and limbs feel very heavy. Although the excretion of blood by the woman every month is the excretion of superfluous material, it is still considered a disease. The word נדה means to “be distant;” similarly the word מנודה is a term for people who have been ostracised, banished and banned from society. The term is used in Nedarim 4 in connection with someone vowing to not benefit from certain people’s belongings or eating a meal at their place, or not to come within 4 cubits of the property of such a person. The reason a menstruous woman is referred to as נדה is that other people shun her, keep their distance from her while she is in the throes of that disease. Even her women friends keep their distance from her. She usually spends that period in isolation. Throughout ancient history all the nations considered that period in a woman’s monthly cycle as one requiring her to be isolated, even considering the earth a woman in such circumstances walked on as contaminated. One did not speak to such a woman for fear of being contaminated. When Lavan wanted to search Rachel’s tent and she apologized for not rising in his honour (she was sitting on the teraphim her father was searching for) we note that Lavan did not speak a single word to her. This was because it was considered unhealthy to engage in conversation with a menstruating woman. Clearly, Rachel was sitting isolated in her tent, presumably without any maidservant at her side. The exhalations of such a woman and the odors coming from her were all considered potentially contaminating (compare Genesis 31,34-35). [Halachah, of course, does not recognize such superstitions and in the main a woman’s state of being נדה affects her husband’s relations with her and her inability to touch sacred objects including food for sacred purposes which she would contaminate by her touch. Ed.] According to Nachmanides even what such a woman looked at was considered as harmful, similarly to the evil eye. (Nachmanides on Leviticus 18,19 reports that when a menstruous woman in the very beginning of her period looks at a gleaming sword or mirror, drops of blood can be seen on that sword or mirror according to the eye witness reports of some “scientists.”) It is clear that if even some of all this is true cohabiting with a woman while she is in that state is a health hazard to her partner.

“When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male.” The Sages said (Niddah 31a): If a man emits seed first, she gives birth to a female; if a woman emits seed first, she gives birth to a male. The commentators wrote that this is a natural phenomenon. The question arises: What is the purpose of informing us about this matter in this section, which discusses the impurity of a woman who gives birth — seven days for a male and fourteen days for a female? Furthermore, what is the relevance of the commandment of circumcision here? Although we could say that the Torah wanted to provide a reason why circumcision is performed on the eighth day, which is so that not everyone will be rejoicing while the father and mother are sorrowful (ibid. 31a), since she has a seven-day period of impurity. Nevertheless, in order to resolve all the difficulties with one approach, I say that all of this follows naturally from the original sin, as it is written: And she becomes purified from the source of her blood. For Eve’s primordial sin is the source that opened for these impure bloods, for sin and impurity, as we find (Eruvin 100b): Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi said, I will greatly increase your pain — these are the two drops of blood: the blood of menstruation and the blood of virginity, etc. This is also implied in the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter “With What May One Light” (Halakha 6), that Eve’s sin is the source of menstrual blood. Therefore, it says: And she becomes purified from the source of her blood, because all women need purification for the primordial sin, from which impurity and contamination spread throughout the world, causing a seven-day impurity for all who are born. For if Adam had not sinned, he would have been like an angel of God, above the influence of the seven planets, but through his sin, his spirituality was removed, and he fell under the dominion of the celestial system, from which impurity is drawn to man. For every physical thing falls under the number seven — the seven planets and the seven days of creation — and everything on the eighth day is spiritual, for it is above the seven, as explained above in Parashat Shemini (9:1). And this is the reason for the seven days of impurity for a woman who gives birth: All of this stems from the primordial sin, and from her the impurity was transmitted to the male child. Since when a woman emits seed first, she gives birth to a male, and therefore the woman’s seed is primary in the male child, and we are not concerned with the father’s seed because it is secondary to the woman’s seed. Accordingly, the seven days of impurity from the mother are also transmitted to the male child, namely through the foreskin which contains impurity, as our Sages said (Pesachim 92): “One who separates from the foreskin is like one who separates from the grave.” Therefore, specifically on the eighth day the newborn is circumcised, because the purification of the child mirrors the purification of his mother, as he cannot be without the seven days of impurity like his mother who has seven days of impurity, and their purification is on the eighth day which is spiritual. However, regarding a female child, where the man’s seed is primary [since when a man emits seed first, a female is born], just as the male has no seven days of impurity — because it was specifically on Eve that the serpent cast its impurity and not on Adam — so too the female child has no impurity. This is a good response to the heretics who ask: If the male is corrected through the removal of the foreskin, how is the female purified? The reason for the two-week impurity for the woman herself after giving birth to a female: It is logical that a woman should have twice the impurity period, corresponding to two females, because each female individually inherits a seven-day impurity from the primordial sin affecting all females in the world. Therefore, it is appropriate that she be impure for 14 days — seven for herself and another seven for her daughter, as she has added impurity to the world beyond her own impurity. For this same reason, the formation of a male takes 40 days, while a female takes 80 days. As it is known that when seed is very hot, it ripens more quickly and becomes an embryo in the full womb. And it is known that a woman’s seed is hotter than a man’s seed, because a woman contributes the redness in it, and all redness tends toward greater heat, while the father contributes the whiteness in it, and all whiteness tends toward greater coldness. Blood and snow prove this, as do fire and water. Therefore it is said, And your desire shall be for your husband (Genesis 3:16), and our Sages said, “A woman desires to be married more than a man desires to marry,” because women have more natural heat which inclines toward desire. Therefore, a male born from the woman’s seed, which is very hot, completes his formation quickly within 40 days. But the female is born from the man’s seed, which is cold and does not ripen quickly, so the formation of the female is not completed until 80 days. This is the reason for the 40 days of impurity for a male and 80 for a female. However, according to our Sages, both male and female formation takes 40 days, and the reason for 40 versus 80 [days of impurity] is because every female is cold and moist. Therefore, her mother needs a long time to cleanse herself from the abundance of moisture imparted to her by the female, which is not the case with a male.

אשה כי תזריע, “when a woman conceives, etc.” At the end of the last portion the Torah instructed the Jewish people to sanctify themselves (verse 44). The fact that the subject following deals with conception, marital intercourse, etc, is proof that the specific sanctification the Torah had in mind at the end of the last portion was that the sex life of the Jewish people should not become one of mere physical indulgence, but should be guided by more lofty considerations, should aim at conceiving and bearing children in a spiritual environment commensurate with the people that are unique in their relationship to their Creator. [In Leviticus chapter 19 the need to sanctify themselves is a dictate based on this relationship with our Creator. I have deliberately pontificated a little at this point. Ed.] It is the duty of the Jewish people to be at all times aware of the fact that there are things in this universe that are pure, and others that are impure in a ritual sense. The destiny of the Jewish people to be a “kingdom of Priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19,6)” cannot be achieved without our constant awareness of this fact. Such considerations are at the root of our sages counseling or demanding that prior to a woman having her monthly period, assuming she is regular, the husband should already refrain from having relations with her for a period of 12 hours to ensure that he would not become ritually defiled by being in contact with her menstrual blood. The sages also decreed that a widowed woman must not remarry for a period of three months to ensure that when she becomes pregnant from her new husband, there is no chance that the child born might have been fathered by her deceased husband. If, by chance, this decree is ignored, children born in ritual impurity of the most severe type might result. Rashi explains on our verse that the wording תזריע, suggests that even if the mother gave “birth” to an afterbirth which was so lacking in substances that it was more like sperm, she is still considered as impure due to birthing. This should not be understood as meaning that if a woman involuntarily aborts an amnion, a sac of the fetus full with water, that she becomes ritually impure like woman that has given birth, seeing that we have a rule that any such sac aborted which did not contain something resembling a human fetus does not confer the impurity of new motherhood on the woman concerned. Only what is called שפיר מרוקם, a sac containing clearly defined human features does that. When the Talmud (Niddah 28) says that when a woman conceives first she will give birth to a male child, the reason for this is that it is a fact in nature that anything that appears later is liable to neutralize phenomena that have appeared earlier. If a woman therefore conceives, or has an orgasm first, this feminine part of the process of conception will be weakened once the subsequent male orgasm and ejaculation occurs and contributes male sperm. The same is true in reverse, of course; when the male ejaculates before the female partner has achieved orgasm, the result will be a child of the feminine gender. Nachmanides writes that the statement in the Talmud about a woman “contributing seed first,” does not mean to imply that women in common with men each contribute sperm to the fetus to emerge. It could not mean that, as it is common knowledge that women do not have sperm. Woman contributes from the blood in her womb to the formation of the eventual fetus, and upon completion of her pregnancy a child is born. The term זרע used by the Talmud refers to the combination of the sperm contributed by the male and the blood contributed by the woman, his partner. Following this approach, the Talmud perceives three partners who between them are active in creating a new life. They are: father, mother, and G’d, the father contributing the sperm which eventually will produce tendons, bones, etc., the mother the blood which will develop into flesh, skin and blood and blood vessels; as well as hair and the black (pupil) of the eye. G’d, of course, contributes the נפש-נשמה the intangible life force known as “soul.” This is the opinion of the medical men of the author’s time. The ancient Greeks believed that the entire body of the baby is produced by the mother, the father’s contribution being limited to determining the shape and form of the raw material man is made of. This had to be so, they believed, as man does not have ovaries, as does woman. The fact is that the chick which was produced after its mother hen had copulated with a rooster is different from the chick whose mother hen had not been mated with a male of the species only in the length of time the mother hen has spent sitting on her egg until it was ready to burst its prison walls and emerge as a new living organism.

אשה כי תזריע, who becomes pregnant whether with a male fetus or a female fetus. When the time comes for her to give birth, the sex of the baby determines her status as to the impurity known as טומאת לידה. All the details are spelled out in the verses following. שבעת ימים; even if it was a “dry birth,” no blood emerging from her vagina. כימי נדת דותה, just as the red colour of the blood determines if a menstruating woman is still evacuating blood, so the same criteria apply to a woman giving birth. The whitish fluid that is characteristic a of woman in a state of flux, זובה, another source of ritual impurity originating within her body, is irrelevant to the subject under discussion in our verses. נדה, the expression denotes a type of isolation, distance from her husband. דותה, an expression denoting a kind of sickness. Compare Jeremiah 8,18 לבי דווי, “my heart is sick within me.”

אשה כי תזריע, “when a woman conceives, etc.” what is meant here is that if the woman reaches orgasm in her marital relations with her husband before he does, she will give birth to a male child.

And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

"And on the eighth day" (וביום השמיני). The Sages of blessed memory said: "by day and not by night." Accordingly, an infant born half an hour before sunset would be circumcised after only six and a half days, since the Torah's "day" is not reckoned from hour to hour [i.e., it counts the calendar day, not a full 24-hour span]. "He shall be circumcised" (ימול): this is in the nifal binyan, as in לא יכון, and it may derive from the root of מולים היו. It is also possible that it is lacking a nun and derives from the root of ונמלתם, just as "a man who vows a vow" (איש כי ידור נדר) lacks an explicit agent — meaning: his father or a court shall perform the circumcision. "His foreskin" (ערלתו): the term is well known as referring to the private area. This is not the case with "foreskin of the heart," "of the lip," or "of the ear" — for those are all used in construct form [i.e., they are metaphors in a different grammatical relation].

וביום השמיני ימול, for by that time the blood of his mother has congealed [dry blood does not confer impurity. Ed.] As a result the baby has become ritually cleansed, no moist blood being attached to it.

וביום השמיני, and on the eighth day, etc. Why did the Torah have to instruct us to circumcise a male baby on the eighth day, something that has been legislated already in Genesis 17,12 prior to the birth of Isaac, even? If all the Torah wanted was to tell us that the rite of circumcision must be performed by day and not by night, or that the importance of circumcising the baby on the eighth day is so important that the Sabbath may be violated in order to fulfil this commandment on time (compare Shabbat 132), why did G'd not include this information in Genesis? Perhaps the reason G'd did not mention all this to Abraham at the time was so that people should not think that only the patriarchs were allowed to violate the Sabbath in order to circumcise the baby on the eighth day, seeing they had not yet been commanded to observe the Sabbath as a day of rest and that therefore the observance of the Sabbath was not so important. However, the Israelites, who were warned in Exodus 31,14 not to violate the Sabbath on pain of execution, were not expected to circumcise their babies on the Sabbath. The Torah repeated the legislation here in order to include the detail that the Sabbath was not to take precedence over circumcision on the eighth day. While it is true that the Talmud in Chulin 101 states that the legislation about גיד הנשה was legislated at Mount Sinai, the Torah decided to record it in Genesis 32,33 to inform us of the reason for this legislation. Similar considerations may have motivated the Torah in recording the legislation about circumcision already in Genesis 17,12 though it was commanded to the Jewish people collectively at Mount Sinai. All of this still enables those who want to, to argue that there is reason to be more lenient about the date of the circumcision prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai than afterwards. Furthermore, we may assume that what the legislation revealed to Abraham in Genesis 17,12 means is that it is as binding as if it had been revealed at Mount Sinai and that therefore the Torah did not need to add any details to that legislation when the Israelites stood at Mount Sinai. G'd did not need to write a special verse to tell Abraham to perform circumcision even on the Sabbath as he would have understood this on his own just as he understood many other מצות which were never spelled out to him. The reason he would have considered the circumcision legislation as overriding the Sabbath legislation is that G'd had not bothered to command him specifically to observe the Sabbath, but He had commanded him specifically concerning the circumcision. In fact, if G'd had spelled out to Abraham that the circumcision on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath legislation, every exegete would have written reams of paper wanting to know why G'd had bothered to do this, seeing that Abraham could have arrived at this by simple logic. Seeing G'd did not tell Abraham, He had to tell the Israelites who, after all, had been commanded to ob...

וביום, “and on the day, etc.;” the reason why the Torah had to write this word is to teach us that if for some reason the circumcision had been delayed beyond the eighth day it must not be performed at night but on the nearest day thereafter possible, except on the Sabbath, as the Sabbath may be desecrated only when the circumcision is performed on the eighth day after birth. (Sifra)her for her husband. וביום השמיני ימול, and on the eighth day the baby is to be circumcised; Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai’s students asked him why that day had been chosen by G-d for circumcision of the newly born; (not sooner) he answered them that this was so that the whole family could rejoice in that celebration, as otherwise the mother of the child could not participate in the joyful activity due to her still being ritually unclean. That day has been described as a joyful occasion in Psalms 119,162: שש אנכי על אמרתך, the psalmist proclaiming “I rejoice over Your promise,” and our sages in the Talmud tractate Shabbat folio 130 understand David as having referred to the day the child is circumcised. On the face of it this is a remarkable statement as one would expect both parents to be saddened by the fact that they cannot indulge in marital relations until then; however as soon as the mother has immersed herself in a ritual bath on the evening after the seventh day, she is free to resume normal relations with her husband. Thus on the eighth day the whole family can rejoice. The reason why this commandment has been repeated is to remind us that it is so important that it be performed on the eighth day that it overrides the work prohibition on the Sabbath. How then can I deal with the explicit warning that anyone desecrating the Sabbath laws is subject to legal execution? (Exodus 31,14.) Only preparatory activities associated with the circumcision are forbidden even on the Sabbath, whereas the circumcision itself overrides the Sabbath provided it is performed on the eighth day. (If the baby was born at dusk on Friday evening, the circumcision is deferred until the day after the Sabbath. If there is some doubt about the baby having a proper foreskin, the removal of that is also not performed on the Sabbath. (Sifra) ימול בשר ערלתו, “the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” We have learned concerning this procedure as follows in the Talmud tractate Shabbat folio 137: “a newborn may be legally circumcised on the eighth, ninth or the tenth, the eleventh or the twelfth day, without the father having been remiss in performing the procedure on the correct day. How can this occur? 1) The normal day for mandatory circumcision is the eighth day. 2) the ninth day as the “official” day is when the baby was born at dusk. If dusk is considered as part of the next day, then the baby cannot be legally circumcised until the morning of the day following, i.e. the ninth day. If that day happens to be the Sabbath, circumcision would have to be delayed for another day. How could it happen that the legal day for the circumcision would not occur until the eleventh of even the twelfth day? If the baby was born at dusk on Friday, and the day following the Sabbath is a festival. If the baby was born at dusk of the end of the twentysecond of Ellul and the following Thursday which would normally be the eighth day is New Year of the following Year and a holiday. As this day however could be the ninth day, both days of New Year as well as Sabbath following are out, so that the earliest legal day would be Sunday, which is the twelfth day after its birth. It is possible that our author bases himself on a statement attributed in Bereshit Rabbah 7,2, to someone by the name do Yaakov, resident of Nevorai, who issued a ruling in Tzor, that the son of an idol worshipping woman and a Jewish father, born on the Sabbath, could be circumcised on the Sabbath. When Rabbi Chagai heard about this ruling he ordered this Yaakov to appear before him in order to be punished by lashes for such a ruling. To this Yaakov of Nevorai replied that “when someone gives a correct ruling according to the Torah, why should he be punished by lashes?” Thereupon Rabbi Chagai asked him to explain how his ruling could conform to Torah law. Thereupon Yaakov cited Numbers 1,18: ויתילדו על משפחותם לבית אבותם, “they identified themselves according to their families by their fathers’ houses.” To this Rabbi Chagai replied that Yaakov had not interpreted that verse correctly, as it could not override the prohibition against intermarriage with members of an idolatrous nation which is spelled out in Deuteronomy 7,3, with the words לא תתחתן בם, “do not intermarry with them (the Canaanites) i.e. since such a union is illegal its offspring is not Jewish. It is also confirmed by Deuteronomy 7,4 where the Torah gives as the reason for such a prohibition: כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי, “for he will lead your son astray from Me;” a reference to your soninlaw. The Torah did not write כי תסיר, for she will lead astray, but “for he will lead astray.” She cannot lead astray, as she is not Jewish in the first place. Therefore the son of the woman mentioned in the story cited in Bereshit Rabbah, does not require circumcision on either a weekday or the Sabbath since he does not qualify for performance of that rite until and if he converted.

וביום השמיני ימול, “and on the eighth day he shall be circumcised.” The word ביום means that even if that day happens to be a Sabbath circumcision is to be performed (Shabbat 131). This holds true only when one can be absolutely certain that the Sabbath is indeed the eighth day after the baby’s birth. When there is any doubt about this, such as the baby being born after sunset but before dark, the circumcision is postponed as we do no desecrate the Sabbath unless we are sure thereby to comply with the Torah’s instructions. The Talmud Shabbat 137 states that an infant may legally be circumcised (earliest opportunity) either on the eighth, the ninth, the tenth, the eleventh or the twelfth day of his life. He must not be circumcised sooner, and unless sick and weak not later (on pain of neglecting performance of a positive commandment incumbent on the father). If the baby has been born clearly during the day or night and is healthy he is to be circumcised on the eighth day. If he was born during dusk he is to be circumcised one day later providing that day is neither Sabbath or festival. If he is born at dusk on Friday he is to be circumcised on Sunday, i.e. the tenth day. If the Sabbath is followed by a festival such as Passover or Tabernacles his circumcision takes place on Monday, i.e. the eleventh day. If the Sabbath is followed by New Year, he is circumcised on the twelfth day of his life, i.e. on the Tuesday following New Year. If the baby was sick, circumcision is postponed until after he is well again. A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Tazria 5). The wicked Roman governor Turnusrufus once asked Rabbi Akiva whose works were more beautiful (beneficial to mankind) G’d’s or man’s? Rabbi Akiva answered that man’s accomplishments were superior. Turnusrufus, [taken aback by the unexpected answer, Ed.] countered: “can man then create heaven and earth that you say man’s accomplishments are greater than G’d’s?” Rabbi Akiva answered: “do not speak to me of matters which are above earth or below earth (beyond the human habitat), but let us discuss only matters within man’s province. Thereupon Turnusrufus asked Rabbi Akiva: “why do you people perform the rites of circumcision?” Rabbi Akiva said: “did I not know that this was the question which really troubled you! This is precisely why I told you right away that man’s accomplishments on earth are greater than G’d’s.” Rabbi Akiva proceeded to illustrate his point and brought Turnusrufus both ears of corns and hot rolls. He pointed to the former, saying “this is G’d’s work;” then he pointed to the rolls and said: “this is man’s work!.” Turnusrufus then said: “if your G’d is so desirous of the male infant being circumcised why did He not arrange for it to be born this way?” To this Rabbi Akiva replied: “why does the baby’s navel get born with it, trailing behind, so that its mother has to sever it?” As to your question why the infant is not born without a foreskin, the reason is that G’d gave us His commandments in order to refine human beings through their observance. This is the meaning of Proverbs 30,5: “every word of G’d is meant to purify.”

And for thirty-three days she shall remain in the blood of purification; she shall not approach any sacred thing, and she shall not enter the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed.

תשב — The word תשב signifies here “remaining”, just as in (Deuteronomy 1:46) “And ye stayed (ותשבו) at Kadesh”, and (Genesis 13:18) “and he stayed (וישב) in the Plain of Mamre” 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). בדמי טהרה — There is no Mappik in the last 'ה of טהרה (as there is in the last word of this verse): it (the word) is an uninflected noun similar in meaning to טֹהַר (being a feminine form of it). ימי טהרה — the 'ה here has a Mappik and the meaning is: the days of her טֹהַר, her purification. בכל קדש [SHE SHALL NOT TOUCH] ANYTHING THAT IS HOLY — not anything: this serves to include the heave-offering (Makkot 14b; Yevamot 75a). The Torah prescribes this because such a woman must be regarded as one who has taken the immersion on a very long day (טבולת יום ארוך), because she immersed herself at the end of the first seven days whilst her sun does not set to bring about her purification until sunset of the fortieth day since it is only on the morrow that she has to bring the atonement offering in connection with her purification, as it is stated in v. 6. לא תגע SHE SHALL NOT TOUCH — This is a prohibition addressed to anyone who would eat holy things in a state of uncleanness, as it is stated in a Baraitha in Yevamot 75a.

AND SHE SHALL THEN ‘TEISHEIV’ (REMAIN) IN THE BLOOD OF PURIFICATION THREE AND THIRTY DAYS. “The term yeshivah [literally: sitting] signifies here ‘remaining,’ just like in the verses: ‘vateishvu’ (and ye stayed) in Kadesh; ‘vayeishev’ (and he dwelled) by the terebinths of Mamre.” This is Rashi’s language. But if so, the verse is stating: “for another thirty-three days she should still wait, touching no hallowed thing nor coming into the Sanctuary, even though they are days of purity as far as [physical relationship with] her husband,” this being the sense of the expression in the blood of purification. Scripture uses this expression [‘remain’ in the blood of purification, instead of saying “and she shall then be … “] in order to inform us that even though she sees no issue of blood during these [thirty-three days for a male child, or sixty-six for a female], she must still wait this entire period on account of the childbirth [before she may eat of the hallowed food or enter the Sanctuary]. It is possible that the expression teisheiv here is like in the verse, Many days ‘teishvi’ (thou shalt sit solitary) for me; thou shalt not play the harlot, and then thou shalt not be any man’s wife, for a woman who has intercourse with her husband is called yosheveth lo (sitting for him). Now since He said in regard to the seven days [after the birth of the male child], she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of the sickness shall she be unclean, meaning that she be impure to her husband and for hallowed food during all these seven days, He now said that after the seven days she may sit for her husband [i.e., she may have intercourse with him] for thirty-three days in the blood of purification, but still she may not touch hallowed things nor come into the Sanctuary, even if she sees [no issue of blood], and she may be with her husband even if she sees [an issue].The correct interpretation appears to me to be that a woman in the days of her menstruation is called niddah (shunned) because she was avoided by and kept distant from all people. Men and women would not approach her, and she would sit alone and not speak with them, for even her speech was considered by them impure, and they regarded the dust upon which she stepped to be impure as the dust of the decomposed bones of the dead. Our Rabbis have mentioned this. Even her gaze was considered harmful, and I have already mentioned this in Seder Vayeitzei Ya’akov. Thus it was the custom of menstruants to sit in a special tent, this being the intent of Rachel’s words to her father [Laban], Let not my lord be angry that I cannot rise up before thee; for the manner of women is upon me, since it was their custom that a woman in that condition should not walk, nor let the sole of her foot step upon the ground. That is why the Torah was more stringent in regard to what the menstruant sits upon or lies upon [in that both the person who touches them and his garments are rendered impure] than ...

The heh of טהרה ("her purification"): its nun is quiescent (assimilated) and should properly be heard, as with the heh in ויקרא לה נבח. The meaning of דמי טהרה ("her blood of purification") is that this is blood of purity, in contrast to the blood of menstrual impurity — it does not impart impurity. Hashem decreed for a male [child] a count corresponding to the male, whose form is completed in the womb [in that number of days], and for a female double that — and this is a clear and tested matter. "She shall not touch any sacred thing" (בכל קדש לא תגע): such as tithe, priestly portions (terumah), and the meat of peace-offerings (shelamim). "And to the sanctuary" (ואל המקדש): meaning the court of the Tent of Meeting, or the Temple courtyard in the Holy Temple. "In her blood of purification" (בדמי טהרה) — or: "on account of her blood of purification" — either rendering is the same.

בדמי טהרה, although this blood could not have originated from a new ovulation but dates back to the last ovulation before she had become pregnant, whatever had happened at that time is no longer relevant the whole appearance of that blood having changed completely.

ושלשים יום ושלשת ימים, “and thirty three days, etc;” the thirty three days plus the first seven days combine to make forty days, the number of days that are required until the male fetus has developed its features. The female fetus requires twice this number of days as has been proven conclusively. (based on the Talmud tractate Niddah folio 30)

ושלושים יום ושלושת ימים, “and for the thirty-three days following, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the 33 days of purification were decreed to combine with the seven days of impurity in order to complete a cycle of forty days. The fetus required forty days after its mother conceived to become something in its own right. A kabbalistic approach: The thirty-three days given to the woman (during which she cannot halachically become a menstruant) were given to her as corresponding to the bride in Song of Songs who is viewed as possessing the thirty-two paths of wisdom. She is presumed to join these thirty-two paths thus making a total of thirty-three [the concept of אחותי כלה “the bride is my sister,” (Song of Songs 4,10) means in kabbalistic terms that “wisdom is my sister,” i.e. [I attach myself to wisdom as one is attached to one’s sister.” Ed.] the כלה is perceived as “carrying,” supporting these thirty-two paths of wisdom. תשב, “she will sit, etc.” Rashi explains that the word תשב is not to be understood in its literal sense, i.e. that this woman has to remain seated; the meaning is that during these thirty-three days she may remain in the immediate vicinity of her husband without having to worry about contracting ritual impurity issuing from her body. The word תשב in the sense of remaining in a location for an extended period is found in Deut. 1,46: ”you dwelt in Kadesh for many years.” The meaning of the whole verse then is as follows: “she will have to wait for 33 days before being allowed to touch sacred things without contaminating them, and she must not enter the Sanctuary. This in spite of the fact that as far as her husband is concerned she is ritually pure and is allowed to cohabit with him.” Nachmanides understands the word תשב in this instance as referring to marital relations, similar to Hoseah 3,3 ימים רבים תשבי לי ולא תזני ולא תהיי לאיש, “you are to go for a long time without sexual intercourse or marrying.” Any woman living with her husband and having normal relations with him is called יושבת לו. Seeing that the Torah had referred to the first seven days after her giving birth as days during which she was suffering a ritual impurity similar to that of a menstruous woman, the Torah had to contrast her status during the following 33 days with her previous status. Maimonides in Sefer Kedushah (Issurei Biah 11,15) writes in a similar vein. These are his words: “the fact that you find in some places (books) and in some responsa of the Gaonim that a woman must not cohabit with her husband for forty days after having given birth to a male child, and not for 80 days after having given birth to a female child even though she had not seen any blood from her normal source of blood during all those days, is an unacceptable practice based on an error. This error has crept into their writings through their copying something from the Sadducees. It is a duty to disabuse scholars of such an error so that they no longer practice heretical practices introduced by the Sadducees. We must ensure that the rulings of the sages that the woman has to count only seven days after giving birth to a male child before being able to cohabit with her husband are upheld.” בדמי טהרה, “in the blood of her purification.” The words mean that such blood is ritually pure. The expression is used by the Torah to contrast this blood with blood issuing forth from a menstruous woman. Ibn Ezra wrote that G’d decreed that the number of days such a state of affairs continues for the male child is shorter because it takes forty days for the embryo to gain some substance, for its major components to become recognisable within the womb. In the case of a female fetus this development requires twice as much time, i.e. 80 days. This is why there is a residue of ritual impurity for eighty days Our sages (majority view, not the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael in Niddah 30, on which Ibn Ezra based himself) hold that the time for a male or female fetus to develop is identical. According to their opinion the reason why the Torah legislated twice the amount of time for both impurity and partial impurity in the case of a female baby being born is that the female is cold and wet and as a result the mother needs more time to recover from the birth of a female baby. [An alternative reason offered also by Rabbi Dr. D. Hoffman is that the Torah may have wanted the mother to be pure at the time her son would be circumcised. This act, in turn, would hasten the progress of her recovery so that all traces of impurity disappear already at the end of forty days. Ed.]

בדמי טהרה, “in blood of purity;” Nachmanides, comments on the opinion of Rashi, who claims that the last letter ה in the word טהרה does not have a dot, dagesh, meaning that the word itself is a noun, and that the translation of the words בדמי טהרה is “in the blood of purification,” [as opposed to “her purification,” Ed] so that the meaning is “although she sees blood she is ritually clean.” This interpretation is also the one given by Ibn Ezra, who spells out that this blood is blood that denotes purification, as opposed to דם נדה that is blood denoting ritual impurity. According to Nachmanides, G’d decreed that the number of days a mother having given birth to a male child remains partially pure and partially impure corresponds to the number of days (40) after conception that it takes for the male fetus to develop to a state where it is recognizable as such. The period of 33 days when she is no longer niddah, in a state of menstruation, to her husband she is still undergoing a second stage of purification before she is able to present the required offerings in the Temple. The word תשב, normally translated as: “she is to sit,” is equivalent to “sitting out,” awaiting the conclusion of the period of the remaining 33 days until she is completely purified. This statement is accepted by Nachmanides as scientifically proved. Similarly, he accepts as proven that the development of the female fetus takes twice as long to attain that stage. [The term “proven” apparently is used, as this is the opinion offered by Rabbi Yishmael in Niddah 30. This Rabbi quoted postmortems performed on a woman executed for some misdemeanour and an embryo not older than 40 days since conception being discovered inside her in such a state of development. The majority view there rejects this “proof,” and states for halachic considerations that both a female and a male fetus develop at the same speed. Ed.] Nachmanides considers the word טהרה here as an adjective, such as when we speak of זהב טהור, pure gold, unadulterated by other metals or dross. The rationale appears to be that when giving birth to a male child, during the first seven days, when the mother still discharges blood constantly, she is considered as in the same state as a menstruating woman having her monthly cycle, The additional thirty three days which the Torah decrees that the new mother has to count, she has to spend staying in her home in order to cleanse her body thoroughly, as during these days she will discharge remnants of blood originating in her womb and ovaries. Once all this has been discharged she is able to enter the consecrated grounds of the Temple and to offer her sacrifices, as described in the following verses. Our sages had a tradition that as far as her ritual status vis a vis her husband- as opposed to vis a vis G’d, i.e. the Temple, is concerned, she is ritually pure after the first seven days. The reason why in both regards twice the length of time for ritual impurity has been decreed by the Torah is either in accordance with Rabbi Ibn Ezra’s opinion based on that of Rabbi Yishmael, that the gestation of a female embryo takes that much longer, or, if we accept the view of the majority opinion of the sages at the time, that both types of embryos have developed to the same state after 41 days, that the nature of the feminine embryo is that it is colder and wetter, the wetness is a condition of the mother’s womb caused by the female embryo, which results in the process of her fully recovering from her pregnancy and birth taking so much longer and the process of discharging excess blood also taking longer. We all know from daily experience that cleaning something that is cold is more difficult than something that is warm or hot. עד מלאת ימי טהרה, “until the completion of the days of her purification.” The completion occurs on the 40th day including the following night. During that night she is still not allowed to come into contact with sanctified objects, etc. On the morning following she may offer the sacrifices ordained for mothers that have recently given birth, including her sin-offering.

בדמי טהרה, blood which is not the result of menstruation. There are two separate origins within a woman’s body from which blood emerges at different times. The blood which emerges during the thirty three days mentioned does not confer impurity. In fact it is part of the healing process.

But if she gives birth to a female, she shall be impure for fourteen days, as in her menstrual separation; and for sixty-six days she shall remain in the blood of purification.

ואם נקבה תלד, and if she gives birth to a female child, etc. Why does the Torah not describe the birth with the word וילדה as it did in the case of a male child? Torat Kohanim write: "how would I have known that the legislation of impurity due to giving birth applies not only in the case of a female child being born but also if a child of undetermined sex or a bisexual child had been born? The Torah writes אם נקבה תלד וטמאה, "if she gives birth to a female she is ritually impure" to teach us that the basic ritual impurity depends on the birth process not on the sex of the baby being born." I most certainly do not want to dispute what Torat Kohanim has written, but I do want to add something to that comment. Perhaps the author of this comment arrives at his conclusion by the failure of the Torah to write simply וכי תלד נקבה, "if she gives birth to a female," with the verb at the beginning of the sentence instead of at its end. This latter sequence of the words would have indicated that what the woman gave birth to would result in her becoming ritually impure only if the baby was definitely female. As it is, the wording allows also for babies of indeterminate sex. Alternatively, the fact that the position of the word תלד is interpreted by Torat Kohanim as including אנדרוגינוס, bisexual children, may reflect the fact that the author of Torat Kohanim holds a view similar to that expressed in Bikkurim 4,5 that such a creature is considered as in a category by itself. [The author proceeds to analyse this problem; the interested reader is referred to the original. Ed.]

וששים יום וששת ימים תשב על דמי טהרה, “and she will remain in a state of blood of purification for sixty six days.” The Torah made a minor change in the description of the blood during those sixty six days, calling it על דמי טהרה, whereas the thirty three days of the parallel period after the birth of a male bay are called as remaining בדמי טהרה. The reason is that after the birth of a male child the mother has to observe these thirty three days under all circumstances, whereas in the case of a female child having been born, it is theoretically possible that the mother has already aborted a new embryo during the 80 days since she gave birth, in which case these days might not have to be observed in full. תשב על דמי טהרה, Rashi explains that the expression תשב in our context means “to sit out,” in the sense of “to wait out.” She is not housebound, but she must await the termination of these days before being allowed to handle sanctified objects, [including the dough she bakes, when it is larger than the minimum quantity requiring that challah be taken from it. Ed.] Of course, she may not enter consecrated grounds during that period. Nachmanides writes that it is possible that the word תשב here is used in the same sense as in Hoseah 3,3 ימים רבים תשבי לי, “you are to refrain for a long time (from sexual intercourse)” A woman who is in the habit of having marital relations with her husband is described as יושבת לו, “co-habiting with him.” Seeing that the Torah had spelled out the type of her impurity during the first seven days as similar to the days of her menstruation, whereas the following days spell out different kinds of restrictions, it is clear that during these latter days she may cohabit with her husband in spite of any blood which appears to originate in her womb or ovaries. Nachmanides’ personal view, however, is that a woman who sees menstrual blood is called niddah, a term borrowed from someone who has been put into some kind of ban and is ostracised from the community. A woman experiencing her period is similarly socially restricted as far as her husband and holy things are concerned. In the olden days such women were assigned special huts to dwell in during these days, In some societies they were not even allowed to speak to people, as their condition was perceived as contagious, and their spittle could have transmitted their germs. The earth that women in such a state stepped on was considered as polluted. What such women excreted was considered is similar to decaying flesh of the dead. Even being looked at by a woman in such a state was considered dangerous by some societies. This may have led the Torah to decree harsher degrees of ritual impurity for women in such a condition. Any place a menstruating woman sat on or lay on is treated as ritually impure, requiring purification in a ritual bath. The nature of ritual impurity of a menstruating woman has something in common with people afflicted with tzoraat on their skin, such people being ostracised and placed In quarantine outside the camp of the Israelites in the desert, or outside built up areas in later Israelite kingdoms. In the case of the צרוע, the person so afflicted, the Torah specifically states בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה, “he is to remain for an open ended amount of time outside the camp.”(Leviticus 13,46) It is clear that the meaning of the word ישב there cannot be: ”he is to sit,” as who can sit for an undisclosed amount of time. The meaning of ישב is that such a person must remain in a condition of expectancy for an indeterminate period of time. The term ישב is used to indicate that he must not enter the camp during this period of ostracism. If the Torah was not content to describe the situation of the צרוע with the words ויצא אל מחוץ למחנה he is to go outside the camp, and ולא יבא אל המחנה and he must not enter the camp, a term used for different other kind of ritually impure people, the reason may be that this צרוע is not to move about at all as even his gaze may be harmful, not only his touch. When the Torah here says that the new mother must תשב בדמי טהרה, it means that she is to observe a similar degree of restriction as do menstruating women, [no more, as we know from the addition that she must not enter consecrated grounds, as otherwise this latter addition would have been superfluous. Ed.]

ואם נקבה תלד, “and if she gives birth to a female child, etc.” the Torah now describes what procedure to follow if, as a result of the husband reaching orgasm first, a baby girl is born. We know this is the meaning from the letter ו before the word: אם, “if or when.” This is how the Talmud, tractate Niddah, folio 31 interprets our verse. Some scholars claim to have read in articles dealing with these matters scientifically, that every woman has seven orifices in her body, three on her right side and three on her left side and one in the middle. If the man’s semen enters any of the orifices on her right side she will give birth to a male child, whereas if it enters on one of the orifices on her left side she will give birth to a female child. If it enters the orifice in her middle, the baby born will either possess no (visible) genitals or the genitals of both sexes. According to these theories it depends on the woman’s position during marital intercourse. If she lies on her right side, she will give birth to a male child, i.e. her ritual impurity will depart from her relatively quickly. This is why the Torah provided for her to be ritually unclean for relations with her husband for only seven days after giving birth. If she had been lying on her left side, her ritual contamination departs more slowly, and that is why the Torah put her out of bounds for marital intercourse for a period of fourteen days. This is why Solomon said in Song of Songs 2,6: שמאלו תחת ראשית וימינו תחבקני, “his left is under my head, and his right embraces me.” The love-sick partner in this poem indicates her desire to bear male children.

And when the days of her purification are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb in its first year as a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin offering, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to the priest.

"In its first year" (בן שנתו): Were it not for the received tradition, who would explain to us "in its first year"? Does it mean a full year — no more and no less — or may it be older or younger? Some say that the reason for the lamb as a burnt-offering is lest some thought arose in her spirit at the moment of birth due to the great pain. The sin-offering: lest she uttered something with her mouth.

תביא כבש, “she is to bring a sheep as an offering;” when his students asked Rabbi Shimon why the mother of the baby has to bring an offering, he answered them that it was because during the contractions preceding her giving birth she swore not again to have marital intercourse with her husband which was the reason for the pain she had to endure. This was an inappropriate oath for which she as to atone. אל פתח אהל מועד, “to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” This teaches that the mother herself looks after these birds as well as sheep until then, when she hands them over to the priest. (Sifra)

And he shall offer it before Hashem and make atonement for her, and she shall be purified from the impurity of her blood. This is the law for one who gives birth to a male or to a female.

והקריבו AND HE SHALL OFFER IT — Two offerings have been mentioned, a lamb and a bird, but it states here ,,and he shall offer it and so make an atonement for her” — this teaches you that only the omission to sacrifice a particular one of these two precludes her from eating the sacrificial food. And which is this? It is the sin-offering, because it is stated immediately afterwards: “he shall make expiation for her and she shall be clean” — that which is intended as expiation (i. e. the sin-offering), upon it does the purification depend (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Chapter 3 4). וטהרה AND SHE SHALL BE CLEAN — it follows, therefore, that until now (until she has brought the atonement offering) she is termed ‘‘unclean” (i.e. she is regarded as טמאה) although she is actually טהרה.

AND HE SHALL OFFER IT BEFORE THE ETERNAL, AND MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HER; AND SHE SHALL BE CLEANSED FROM THE FOUNTAIN OF HER BLOOD. Scripture is stating that she shall offer a ransom for her soul before the Eternal so that she shall be cleansed from the fountain of her blood, for a woman in childbirth has a troubled fountain and a tainted spring, and after she has completed the number of days of becoming clean [as explained above in Verse 4], or the days of the formation of the child, male or female, she shall then bring a ransom for her soul so that her fountain should be stayed, and that she should become cleansed, for G-d, praised be He, “heals all flesh and does wondrously.”Now our Rabbis have said that [the reason for these offerings is] that at the moment that she bends down to give birth she rashly swears [because of the pains of childbirth]: “I will no longer have relationships with my husband” [so as not to conceive again]. The main purport of this statement of the Rabbis is that since she only swears on account of her pain, and the oath is moreover not capable of fulfillment, because she is subject to her husband, therefore the Torah wished for her to atone for that which came into her mind [and therefore commanded her to bring these offerings]. G-d’s thoughts, blessed be He, are deep, and His mercies are bountiful, for it is His desire to justify His creatures.

"And he shall offer them" (והקריבו): both this — the lamb — and the turtledove or young pigeon. Scripture uses concise language here. Similarly, it does not mention the wringing of the neck of the bird sin-offering, because the priest does not eat a bird sin-offering. "And he shall atone for her" (וכפר עליה): as I have explained. "And she shall be pure from the source of her blood" (וטהרה ממקור דמיה): this is a sign that she does not become pure through her childbirth until the counted days have passed.

והקריבו לפני ה׳ וכפר עליה; and he shall offer it before G'd and make atonement for her. Concerning the offering of the sheep as a burnt-offering the Torah said והקריבו, whereas concerning the turtle-dove as the sin-offering the Torah writes וכפר עליה, "and he will make atonement for her." Torat Kohanim write that the two sacrifices are not both dependent on each other in order to fulfil their respective tasks but that only one depends on the other. I do not know therefore which of the two sacrifices is indispensable, and this is why the Torah said והקריבו, he will offer it up. Had, the Torah only written these words I still would not have known which one of these two sacrifices was indispensable; therefore the Torah adds the words וכפר עליה to tell us that the sin-offering is indispensable. Perhaps the exegesis is derived from the fact that the Torah could have simply written והקריבם, "and he is to offer them up." The fact that the Torah spent all these extra words teaches that the two sacrifices are not of equally indispensable nature.

והקריבו, “and he (the priest) shall offer it;” although the pronoun ending in this word is in the singular mode, i.e. ”it,” what is meant is all three creatures, the two birds and the sheep. The Torah also does not bother to spell out the manner in which the birds will be killed, i.e. מליקה, “pinching off of the head, as per Leviticus 5,8.

וכפר עליה, “and atone for her, etc.” The word כפרה, “atonement,” is never used except when applicable to a sin. This is why the very institution of the sin-offering which the woman who has given birth has to bring strikes one as just as unique as that which the Torah demanded of the Nazir, the person who voluntarily abstained from wine, grape-associated products, and impurity (Numbers 6,14). What sin did the woman commit at the time she gave birth that the Torah should impose upon her the need to offer a sin-offering? If this sacrifice were meant to express her gratitude that she was saved from the danger attending every birth, the Torah should have prescribed that she bring a קרבן תודה, a thanksgiving offering! Why demand that she bring a sin-offering? It is possible to understand the reason for this offering as not so much related to her as to her “mother,” i.e. the first woman Chavah, who had committed the first sin as a result of which all women subsequently had to endure painful deliveries, pains of menstruation, separation from their husbands, etc. Had Chavah not been guilty of introducing disobedience to G’d’s command women would have been spared all this. The whole process of giving birth would have remained as natural a process as for trees to yield their fruit. Trees do not have to experience desire in order to become fertilized and to yield their fruit year after year. This woman who gave birth now may be perceived as the branch of a contaminated root, daughter of a corrupted mother and as such some of the mother’s contamination was transmitted to her. Hence the Torah requires that she atones for this by bringing a sin-offering after giving birth. By doing so she does her part in helping to atone for the original sin of Chavah. In fact, we find that we are taught in Shabbat 31 that women have been commanded to observe three commandments specifically to help undo the spiritual damage caused to the species of man by their original “mother.” They are 1) the observance of a state of impurity with subsequent purification during their regular menstruation cycles. 2) חלה, the separating (and while the Temple was standing giving to the Priest) of the first part of any dough they bake from the five species of grain (Numbers 15,20-21), and 3) the lighting of the Shabbat candles every Friday night. [The last two commandments devolve on the male when there is no woman at hand. Ed.] In fact, according to the Talmud there, failure to observe these three commandments meticulously may result in their dying during childbirth. Seeing that that particular sin was preceded by the sinful thought before it was actually carried out, the woman offers both a burnt-offering and a sin-offering after giving birth; the first offering atones for the sinful thought and the second for the sinful deed (compare verse 5). This is the reason the Torah wrote of the requirement for the woman to bring a burnt-offering before mentioning the need for her to bring a sin-offering. In all other instances where the sin-offering has to be brought on account of a sin committed by the person bringing the offering, the Torah demands that he first cleanse himself spiritually by atoning for the deed before bringing the burnt-offering. When the Talmud Zevachim 90 states that when the Torah wrote the words אחד לעולה ואחד לחטאת, “one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering,” (verse 8) that the actual presentation of these two offerings does not follow the order in which the two offerings are listed here, this supports our contention that the reason the Torah reversed the order in which the legislation is written is meant to teach us the lesson we mentioned, i.e. that the sinful intention preceded Chavah’s eating of the fruit of that tree, i.e. the offering we speak of here was not in penitence for an unintentional inadvertently committed sin as are most other sin-offerings. According to the opinion of our sages (Niddah 31) the reason for the sin-offering the mother has to bring is that she presumably was guilty of swearing off marital relations with her husband seeing that the experience of giving birth was so painful and the pregnancy so uncomfortable. Her offering atones for such a lapse on her part. Seeing her oath at the time was due to her being in pain, and she is not a free agent allowed to deny her husband his marital rights, she has committed a culpable sin, i.e. she needs to atone with a burnt-offering for her sinful intent.

והקריבו לפני ה' וכפר עליה, “He shall offer it before Hashem and atone for her.” Nachmanides writes that the new mother is in need of atonement as a woman after having given birth is left with a damaged womb. She is in need of having G’d heal that damage for her in order that she will be capable of continuing normal family relations after her womb has healed. Only G’d, the Healer of all flesh, can do this for her. Our sages of old, hold that the reason why most women are in personal need of atonement is that during the excruciatingly painful experience of giving birth they vowed never again to have marital relations with their husbands. Seeing that such a woman swore out of extreme pain and her oath is therefore not really effective legally, since she is contractually obligated to have relations with her husband, G’d wanted her to escape the consequences of such an oath, and by allowing her to bring this sacrifice He forgave her. [We must remember that a legally ineffective oath constitutes uttering the name of the Lord in vain. Ed.]

וטהרה, she is ritually pure enough to be allowed to eat sacred foods. This is the interpretation of our sages in Yevamot 74. This is not so surprising, as a person undergoing the ritual rehabilitation process, if lacking only the official stamp of atonement, i.e. the sacrifice in question, may already eat sacred foods of the sanctity level of T’rumah, grain or its derivative given to the priest as a tithe. Sacred foods of a higher degree of sanctity may not be consumed by such a person until he has brought the requisite sacrifice.

וטהרה ממקור דמיה, “she shall be cleansed from the source of her ritual impurity.” What is the purpose of this verse? Even if the woman who had given birth had seen menstrual blood during all these days of ritual cleansing, she would be able to bring the requisite offerings at the conclusion of these 33 or 66 days after the initial period when she was out of bounds to her husband? Even if we were to assume that these words refer to the blood she saw while ritually unclean, there was no need to repeat the word דמיה, “her blood (her insides had not healed yet).” Her ritual purity does not depend on her bleeding or not bleeding, as she is not able to offer the sacrifices concluding her state of being considered a יולדת “birthing woman” even if she had not only stopped bleeding immediately after giving birth, but had experienced what halachah describes as a “dry” birth! The reason why the expression וטהרה, “she regained her ritual purity,” is in place is because until the expiry of these days and her having brought the requisite offerings, she cannot partake of food which is the residue of animals that have been slaughtered on the altar in the courtyard of the Temple, as well as agricultural products to be given to a priest, i.e. t’rumah.”

And if her means are insufficient for a lamb, she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons — one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering — and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be purified.

אחד לעלה ואחד לחטאת THE ONE FOR A BURNT-OFFERING AND THE OTHER FOR A SIN-OFFERING — Scripture puts it (the עולה) first only by way of mention, but so far as offering it is concerned the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering; thus do we learn in the Treatise Zevachim 90a, in the chapter commencing כל התדיר .

"If she cannot afford" (תמצא ידה): like the sense of "and his hand does not reach" (ואין ידו משגת). "And the priest shall atone for her and she shall be pure" (וכפר עליה הכהן וטהרה): this teaches that if the priest does not perform the atonement for her, she does not become pure — and this [obligation] is tied to the Land [of Israel].

וכפר עליה, for during all the days that she had been excreting blood her thoughts had been preoccupied with the phenomenon of semen, etc, and she had therefore not been in a fit state of mind to enter the precincts of the Temple and offer sacred matters.

And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean. This atonement is for the primordial sin of Eve that caused her the pain of childbirth, and in her pain perhaps she spoke harshly toward Heaven saying, “’If so, why am I’ pregnant with toil and suffering?” And proof of this is from what is written, and she shall be clean from the source of her blood — from that source that was opened for sin and impurity, for it [the sin] caused her all this, namely the sin of Eve as mentioned. Also, the language of damehah [her blood] includes the sin, from the expression their blood is upon them (Leviticus 20:27). And some say that this atonement is for the oath, which she swore not to be intimate with her husband from the moment she kneels to give birth (Niddah 31b). Therefore, a woman who gives birth to a male quickly regrets [the oath] due to her great joy, thus her atonement comes quickly. But a woman who gives birth to a female suffers and does not regret quickly, therefore her atonement is delayed. And even though the oath is not valid at all — for if it were, how would she be permitted to her husband after seven days for a male and 14 days for a female without atonement, since the bringing of the atonement is after 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female? Because in truth there is no oath here, as the matter is not in her hands since she is obligated to her husband, and it is similar to one who swears that he does not want to pay his debt. Nevertheless, she needs atonement for uttering the oath with her mouth and for harboring thoughts in her heart to complain against God out of her pain. Therefore, her offering is a sin-offering to atone for the sin of the action, as the contortion of her lips is considered like an action, and a burnt-offering for the thoughts of the heart. And there is a hint to this from what is written, and she shall be cleansed from the source of her blood, for if she swore in her anger, certainly the boiling of the blood was the cause for this, as it is the cause for all anger, and all anger originates from the blood and its boiling. Therefore it says, and she shall be cleansed from the source of her blood.

וכפר עליה הכהן, “and the priest shall make atonement for her.” Some people understand this procedure as being in the nature of physical cleansing as in Leviticus 14,19: וכפר על המטהר, “he will cleanse him on account of his uncleanness;” or in verse 53 of the same chapter: וכפר על הבית, “he will make atonement for the house.” In both these verses the subjects are afflictions either on the skin or the house, [neither of which can be considered as “guilty,” so that atonement in the spiritual sense would be required for them. Ed.] We find a similar expression in connection with someone suffering an uncontrollable emission of semen from his sexual organ, i.e. a disease. Clearly, it was not the semen that is at fault and requires purification on that account. (Compare Leviticus 15,15) While it is true that the afflictions in these verses were the result of the person suffering them having committed a sin, it still would sound incomprehensible if their belongings would be “punished.” Furthermore, the expression וחטא את הבית, “he will cleanse the house,” is used in the spiritual sense [seeing the root of the word is חטא sin, so that וכפר and וחטא, can be used both for describing spiritual cleansing and physical cleansing, depending on the context in which these words appear. (Compare Mishnah Negaim, 4,11)